Posts Tagged ‘creation’

Video: Dinosaurs and Man; The Lands That Darwin Forgot..Episodes 1-8

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, Religious, s8int.com, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Oct 28 2010

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

Darwin and time forgot the co-existence of man and dinosaurs but it is reflected in the art of ancient peoples. The variety and repetitive discoveries of known dinosaur and pterosaur species offer proof that Darwinism is a lie; all species of animals on this planet have lived concurrently with man.

The proof of this assertion is explored in eight episodes. The Series; The Lands That time Forgot”.
(Note this is not a real series….Its a s8int.com conceit)

And God created the great dragons…

And man memorialized these creatures; great and small; in exquisite detail. That is why these examinations will never be popular. everything that we’ve been told is true by materialistic sources–is untrue–and that is impossible in that world view.

Link to Video; Dinosaurs and Man; The Lands That Darwin Forgot..Episodes 1-8

Note: No actual, horses, dogs or dinosaurs were hurt or harmed in the making of this movie….

Pelican Fossil Poses Evolutionary Riddle; ,
Why, They Haven’t Evolved, Not Even a Little

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 25 2010


Pelican fossil poses another evolutionary riddle;
Why, they haven’t evolved, not even a little!
Just like spiders and octopi, lamprey’s and bees
Why did this “evolutionary process” seemingly freeze?

The fossil record shows fig wasps and crocodiles unchanged
How could such an “inexorable process” become so deranged?
Neither ants, bats or cockroaches have changed an iota
Of “beneficial mutations” did Darwin fail to gets its quota?

Scientist’s were “surprised” to find mammal hair “unevolved”?
How will macroevolution’s evolving, non-evolving problem be solved?
Will these constant discoveries give the “tree of life” a jostle?
Or will Darwinist’s have to call everything alive “living fossils”?

The “extinct” coelacanth; the ancestor of land animals was crowned
But it’s another evolution riddle ‘cause its still swimming around!
The “trade secret” of evolution revealed by a Darwinist apostle
But they still go on “snipe hunts” for transitional fossils!

Pelican fossil poses evolutionary puzzle, by Jeff Hecht, June 2010
NewScientist

Pelicans that closely resembled those living today were scooping fish from the water while our ancestors were still swinging from the trees, a fossil discovery suggests.

The identification of an extremely well preserved 30-million-year old fossilised beak raises interesting questions over why evolution has left the birds so little changed over such a long period.

The nearly complete beak of the 30-million-year old fossil, found in the Luberon area of south-eastern France, resembles those of the seven modern pelican species so closely that it falls within the genus Pelecanus, says Antoine Louchart of the University of Lyon, France.

Pelican beaks are the longest of any living birds. Beneath the beak is a flexible pouch that allows the birds to capture their prey in the water, then spit out the water before swallowing their meal. Like other bird beaks, they are rarely preserved as fossils, so little had been known about their early evolution.

Family resemblance
Louchart recognised the fossil, discovered in the 1980s, while examining specimens in the collection of his co-author Nicolas Tourment. Protected by being buried in fine-grained limestone, it includes most beak bones, plus parts of the skull and neck, and strongly resembles the modern great white pelican, Pelecanus onocrotalus.

The lack of evolutionary change could suggest the beak has reached an evolutionary optimum for flight or for eating. Louchart is not convinced that either of these hypotheses offers a complete explanation; he thinks something else may be involved but does not know what that might be.

The find not only pushes back the origins of pelicans, but of related birds too. “The groups now thought to be closest to pelicans, the shoebill and hamerkop, must also have differentiated very early, says Louchart.

“The pelican bill has been a successful adaptation or trait, in that it has remained very similar over time,” says Rebecca Kimball of the University of Florida. Two years ago Kimball reported in Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1157704) that pelicans were genetically close to near relatives, which she said would reflect their slow evolution.

X-Woman a New Species? Don’t Tell Me; Evolutionists X-Pect it Will Cause a Rewrite of “Human Evolution”? Well, Not X-Exactly.

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Apr 06 2010

(When Neanderthal DNA was finally tested, it was found that it matched yours and mine to 99.99%)This, even if they are eve found in association with “modern” humans it is an article of faith that they never interbred. Here with “X-Woman” they have to make the same claim although the finger was found in association with Neanderthal “artifacts”. It’s clear as our opening quote states, there is no evolutionary ladder–there are rather, a number of fossils, some of which are apes or monkeys and some of which are men.

They are basing their “separate species” claims on the alleged recovery of mitochondrial DNA. The problems with this approach are manifold and technical so may I just say that the claims they have made are grandiose, speculative and silly? Well, here is an article excerpt that might shed some light on the problems. The subject of the article is the mythical mitochondrial Eve:

“The validity of these assertions (re MtDNA Eve) is dependent upon two critically important assumptions: (1) that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother; and (2) that the mutation rates associated with mtDNA have remained constant over time.

The fact is (again, as we pointed out in the earlier article), we now know that both of these assumptions are wrong!

Ann Gibbons authored an article for the January 2, 1998 issue of Science titled “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” the subheading of which read as follows: “Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events.”

In that article, she discussed new data which showed that the mutation rates used to obtain mitochondrial Eve’s age no longer could be considered valid.

Evolutionists have assumed that the clock is constant, ticking off mutations every 6000 to 12,000 years or so. But if the clock ticks faster or at different rates at different times, some of the spectacular results—such as dating our ancestors’ first journeys into Europe at about 40,000 years ago—may be in question (279:28).

Gibbons then quoted Neil Howell, a geneticist at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, who stated: “We’ve been treating this like a stopwatch, and I’m concerned that it’s as precise as a sun dial. I don’t mean to be inflammatory, but I’m concerned that we’re pushing this system more than we should” (279:28). Gibbons concluded:

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 10,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old (1998, 279:29, emp. added).

“Mitochondrial Eve” a mere 6,000 years old—instead of 200,000?! Gibbons quickly went on to note, of course, that “no one thinks that’s the case,” (279:29). She ended her article by discussing the fact that many test results are (to use her exact word) “inconclusive,” and lamented that “for now, so are some of the evolutionary results gained by using the mtDNA clock” (279:29).

Which brings us to the point of this article. As we pointed out in our introductory sentence, the news gets worse. The “evolutionary results gained by using the mtDNA clock” are not just “inconclusive.”
They’re wrong! In the January 2003 edition of the Annals of Human Genetics, geneticist Peter Forster of Cambridge published an article (“To Err is Human”) in which he documented that, to use his words, “more than half of the mtDNA sequencing studies ever published contain obvious errors.”

He then asked: “Does it matter? Unfortunately, in many cases it does.” Then came the crushing blow for “Mitochondrial Eve”: “…fundamental research papers, such as those claiming a recent African origin for mankind (Cann, et al., 1987; Vigilant, et al., 1991)…have been criticized, and rejected due to the extent of primary data errors” (67[1]:2, emp. added).

Then, as if to add salt to an already open and bleeding wound, Dr. Forster acknowledged that the errors discovered thus far are “only the tip of the iceberg…,” and that “there is no reason to suppose that DNA sequencing errors are restricted to mtDNA” (67[1]:2,3).

One month later, Nature weighed in with an exposé of its own. In the February 20, 2003 issue, Carina Dennis authored a commentary on Forster’s work titled “Error Reports Threaten to Unravel Databases of Mitochondrial DNA.” Dennis reiterated the findings that “more than half of all published studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences contain mistakes.”

Then, after admitting that “published mtDNA sequences are popular tools for investigating the evolution and demography of human populations,” she lamented: “[T]he problem is far bigger than researchers had imagined. The mistakes may be so extensive that geneticists could be drawing incorrect conclusions to studies of human populations and evolution” (2003, 421:773,…
Apologetics Press: How Many Times does “Mitochondrial Eve” have to Die? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

As we’ve stated; we fully expect the claims about “X-Woman” to be significantly dialed back once the actual DNA tests come back. In the past few years the harshest critics of this kind of ‘science” tend to other evolutionists with either competing theories or else a certain naïveté about their reasonable criticisms remaining in house.

Do we need to mention what happened to Ida last year? That “fossil” went from the missing link that would “change everything” to just “missing” in about six months. Ardi, another much ballyhooed missing link is also in danger of finding “himself” dead again.

Every few months these days there is a fossil find that evolutionists claim is going to “rewrite” human evolution. Here are a few of such claims going back several years.

Archaeological Finds Add New Chapter To Japanese History .
Oct 21, 1981
stone tools found in Japan supposedly 50,000 years old were going to require rewriting textbooks.

Evolution .Fossils Read To Decipher Human History .
Apr 20, 1994

the private Institute of Human origin in Berkeley, Robert (Walter and his .studies may even rewrite— — the history of human evolution over the past 4 million yean. …

Fossil find could rewrite human history
Thursday, 10 December, 1998, 10:24 GMT
“[This is] probably the most momentous palaeoanthropological find ever made in Africa,” Tobias said of Tanzanian four foot fossil

Article: The Observatory; In the world of anthropology, hypotheses compete for survival.
Jun 16, 1999
Recently as 1500 Years Ago Could Rewrite the Timeline for Human Evolution Mystery Skulls ……

New fossils heat up the battle over who was the first human.(EVOLUT…
Jul 23, 2001)

(EVOLUTION)(Society)(Brief Article) … find Newsweek articles. … Wood of George Washington University, you “have to rewrite human evolutionary history. …
Paleontologists working at a cave in Spain have found 780000-year-old fossils of what they say is a new species on the human family tree. …

Discovery of human-like fossils may rewrite the history of evolution
Jul 12, 2001

Scientists say the new fossils suggest strongly that humans split from apes and walked upright between seven million and nine million years ago …

Skull may rewrite our evolution — Fossil called start of human lineage By MARK
07-11-2002, EVANS,
In what may be the most startling fossil find in decades, scientists in central Africa say they have unearthed the oldest trace of a pre- human ancestor – a remarkably intact skull of an apelike species that may have walked upright as far back as 7 million years ago.
The thick-browed, flat-faced skull was found in Chad,

European fossils rewrite human evolution: Canadian professor
February 19, 2002
CBC News Fossils of ancient human relatives suggest the beginning of the evolution of apes and humans occurred in Europe, not Africa, says a University of Toronto anthropologist

Prehistoric Dwarf Skeleton May Rewrite Human Evolution .
Bangor Daily News – Google News Archive – Oct 28, 2004

Fossils rewrite human evolution
Stuff.co.nz – Oct 8, 2007

WELL PRESERVED: An ancient Homo erectus skull was found alongside a Homo habilis jawbone, suggesting early human ancestors may have lived together.

New ape species rewrites our evolutionary history
23 August 2007
Fossil teeth from Africa of a gorilla-like species suggest that the great apes may have evolved more slowly than thought …Emma Young

Ancient Skull May Rewrite Human History
Beijing Review – Mar 11, 2008

Li said that although Xuchang Man was not as old as other discoveries, the skull could “fill a huge gap in our knowledge of human evolution.” …

Georgian bones rewrite story of human evolution
ABC Regional Online – ABC Regional Online – Sep 26, 2009

So I think what we are getting now, the new evidence, is helping us to think more about how little we know about human evolution. …

Discovery suggests humans, apes evolved separately
National Post – Oct 1, 2009

And surprisingly, it’s also rewriting the story of our relation to gorillas and … a complete rewrite about what is known about human and ape evolution, …

Darwin’s theory stands on both feet
Edmonton Journal – Nov 13, 2009

A Canadian scientist has spearheaded a study that could rewrite a key chapter in the story of human evolution, tracing the emergence of one of our defining …

Ardi rewrites human history
Winnipeg Free Press – Feb 8, 2010

Ida: This Changes Everything! This fossil Will Rewrite Human History
April 2009

CSI Darwin; Laetoli Footprints Fall Completely Within the Range of Normal Human Footprints.

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 24 2010

Humans with normal footprints?!

Whenever I accidentally stumble across CSI Miami, CSI New York or CSI Las Vegas, I eventually find myself asking; “hey, where are the detectives?!”. The crime scene investigators on these shows carry weapons, interview witnesses and arrest bad guys.

In reality, crime scene investigators or technicians collect evidence-and importantly, provide forensics; the analysis and legal interpretation of trace evidence.

When it comes to the analysis and interpretation of trace evidence, perhaps no one has done as poor a job as the Darwinists. A case in point is their interpretation of the “evidence” found and conclusions drawn with respect to the fossil named ‘Lucy”. These “technicians” found a chimpanzee like fossil which was also chimpanzee sized; then bizarrely assumed that knee bones found a few years earlier- between 1 and 2 miles distant and at lower elevation belonged to the same fossil; making it “transitional”.

Later, when human-like footprints were found in volcanic ash, which they judged to be about the same age as the fossil “Lucy”–they attributed the footprints to “her” species as well.

“Lucy” is supposed to be one of the best examples of human evolution. Darwinist’s cobbled together an imaginary being too serve as an evolutionary transition between apes/monkey’s and man. The idea was that Lucy was transitioning from tree-swinger to bi-pedalism. Among the many problems with this analysis is that the footprints have now been analyzed to show that they are completely consistent with “modern” humans or more correctly; humans.

Here’s another way to interpret your “evidence” CSI Darwin; at some time in the past there existed together; humans and chimpanzees. The knee bones found more than a mile away from the chimp did not belong to the chimp. It belonged to a human as did the footprints.

Now, go find a detective….s8int.com

Evidence Indicates Humans’ Early Tree-Dwelling Ancestors Were Also Bipedal
ScienceDaily (Mar. 20, 2010)
— More than three million years ago, the ancestors of modern humans were still spending a considerable amount of their lives in trees, but something new was happening.

David Raichlen, an assistant professor in the University of Arizona School of Anthropology, and his colleagues at the University at Albany and City University of New York’s Lehman College have developed new experimental evidence indicating that these early hominins were walking with a human-like striding gait as long as 3.6 million years ago.

The results of their research appears in PLoS ONE, a journal from the Public Library of Science.

A trackway of fossil footprints preserved in volcanic ash deposited 3.6 million years ago was uncovered in Laetoli, Tanzania, more than 30 years ago. The significance of those prints for human evolution has been debated ever since. The most likely individuals to have produced these footprints, which show clear evidence of bipedalism, or walking on two legs, would have been members of the only bipedal species alive in the area at that time, Australopithecus afarensis. That species includes “Lucy,” whose skeletal remains are the most complete of any individual A. afarensis found to date.

A number of features in the hips, legs, and back of this group indicate that they would have walked on two legs while on the ground. But the curved fingers and toes as well as an upward-oriented shoulder blade provide solid evidence that Lucy and other members of her species also would have spent significant time climbing in trees.

This morphology differs distinctly from our own genus, Homo, who abandoned arboreal life around 2 million years ago and irrevocably committed to human-like bipedalism. Since the Laetoli tracks were discovered, scientists have debated whether they indicate a modern human-like mode of striding bipedalism, or a less-efficient type of crouched bipedalism more characteristic of chimpanzees whose knees and hips are bent when walking on two legs.

To resolve this, Raichlen and his colleagues devised the first biomechanical experiment explicitly designed to address this question. The team built a sand trackway in Raichlen’s motion capture lab at the UA and filmed human subjects walking across the sand. The subjects walked both with normal, erect human gaits and then with crouched, chimpanzee-like gaits. Three-dimensional models of the footprints were collected by biological anthropologist Adam Gordon using equipment brought from his Primate Evolutionary Morphology Laboratory at the University at Albany.

The researchers examined the relative depth of footprints at the heel and toe, and found that depths are about equal when made by a person walking with an erect gait. In contrast, the toe print is much deeper than the heel print when produced by a crouched gait, a product of the timing of weight transfer over the length of the foot.

“Based on previous analyses of the skeletons of Australopithecus afarensis, we expected that the Laetoli footprints would resemble those of someone walking with a bent knee, bent hip gait typical of chimpanzees, and not the striding gait normally used by modern humans,” Raichlen said. “But to our surprise, the Laetoli footprints fall completely within the range of normal human footprints.”

Source and Article Remainder Here

s8int=saint

“Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave, When At First We Practice to Deceive”–Alleged 165 Million Year Old Spider Looks Just Like 165 Day Old Spider

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 12 2010


Genesis 1:24
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind”; and it was so.

If evolutionists had a long list of transitional fossils (or even a short list) that they could point to that proved that the living creatures on this planet were “evolving”, then frequently discovering fossils that obviously were unchanged –though supposedly millions of years old would not be so problematic for them.

We’ve written here about the unchanged “95 million year old octopi”, and the fossil lamprey, allegedly 360 million years old which was identical in every respect to “modern” lampreys, and the alleged 150 million year old squid that was also identical to “modern” squids. So, if we have no transitional fossils and we have a surfeit of ancient bees that were bees and ants that were ants and spiders that were; spiders etc. etc. why would anyone believe that Darwinism is true?


Photo: Gould; saying more stuff “out of context”?

It was famous Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould who said “the lack of transitional fossils is the trade secret of paleontology”.

I have to tell you that evolutionists will do a spit take if you say that there are no transitional fossils–but they become downright upset and angry if you go to the Stephen Jay Gould quote. “You’re quoting him out of context they shout”, (or type), ironically, looking just like angry men have always looked from the time of Adam. (They’re unchanged just like spiders and bees.)

Can you imagine a scenario wherein Gould was not really trying to say that there were not a lot of transitional fossils around and that this information was not something generally known? Maybe he was just quoting the lines from some unknown B Movie?

Colin Patterson, another prominent evolutionist, formerly a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and author of the book “Evolution” said the following re: transitional fossils and his understanding of what Gould and some of his associate paleontologists meant by the “lack of transitional fossils”

Photo:Evolution 2nd Edition; Now without transitional fossils! (Previously without transitional fossils).

In a letter to an evolutionist who had complained about the lack of drawings of these whimsical creatures (transitional ones) in Patterson’s book; Evolution, Patterson responded;

“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it…

Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils..”…

Indeed they are Colin! (he’s passed on)

Re: the subject at hand; scientists have discovered the very well preserved fossil of a spider which they claim is 165 million years old. Was it some kind of “pre-spider”? Something very primitive in the spider line with you know; stooped shoulders, a prominent forehead and copius hair? We know from years of indoctrination that these are the qualities that make a creature primitive.

Nope! According to the article:

E. gertschi shows all the features of the modern members of the family, found in North America, suggesting it has evolved very little since the Jurassic period, Selden said.

“The scimitar-shaped structure you notice out of the male is so distinctive,” he said. “Looking at modern ones, you think, well, it’s just a dead ringer.”

Read More
Read More Here

Thanks to Chris Z……

s8int=saint

Evolutionist’s Refuse to Accept the Sole of Man; These are the Soles that Try Men’s Times (200,000,000 Years+); The Sole of Man After Death; Fossilized Shoe Sole from Rock Supposedly Hundreds of Millions of Years Old

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 15 2010


Click Photo For Higher Resolution

Fossil Under Lens Like Manmade Shoe—
Microphotos Are Made of Freak Taken From Rock Millions of Years Old—-
Stitches Are Revealed. —-Examination by Rockefeller Institute Tends to Upset Long-Accepted Theories
New York Times, August 13, 1922

Chris Parker, Copyright 2010

“Microphotographs taken by the Rockefeller Institute of the so-called Triassic shoe of Nevada have been interpreted by some experts as establishing that fossil, now in the possession of John T. Reid of Lovelock, Nev., as a work of human manufacture.

This fossil or freak, which resembles a hand-welted sole with marvelous definitiveness of detail, was found embedded in Triassic rock, somewhere from 100,000,000 to 300,000,000 years old. The shoe, if it is a shoe, is older than the rock, because the rock must have formed over and around it by the precipitation of minerals from solution”….NYT Aug 13, 1922

The Apostle Paul defined faith as “the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”. Merriam-Webster defines it this way in part;: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction”.

Paul says that faith is based on evidence. Popularly it is said that Christians believe without evidence but that science is wholly based on facts, evidence and substance.

This popular belief is wrong in both respects; faith in God is built on evidence and belief in evolution and materialism is without facts or substance—or else the “facts” have been misunderstood, ignored or twisted.

With respect to God, Romans Chapter 1 says that God’s invisible qualities and Divine nature can be clearly understood by what has been made-so that man is without excuse. Sir Isaac Newton put it this way:

” This thing [a scale model of our solar system] is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you, as an atheist, profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?”

With respect to evolution natural selection has failed as an adequate mechanism to explain macroevolution and there is no known scientific explanation for the creation of life from non-life.

When it comes to the universe itself, the materialist essentially believes; in the beginning there was nothing—which exploded! When it comes to the origin of the universe and the mechanism for the macroevolution of plants and animals, evolutionists have to sustain themselves by faith! After all, the main scientific theory as to the origin of this universe (the big bang) requires one to accept that up to 96% of the universe is “invisible” and undetectable (dark matter and energy). See; that’s faith; belief in things unseen–but where is the evidence?

In 1922, John T. Reid, himself a mining engineer, found the sole of a shoe encased in “Triassic rock” outside Lovelock, Nevada. If accepted, it would have as the NY Times article suggested; upset long held theories. This is why there was absolutely zero chance of the fossil being accepted as a shoe sole either then, or now.

This would be true even after an examination by one of the preeminent medical institutes of the time (Rockefeller Inst.) examined the object under very high magnification and took photographs clearly showing the stitching.

Before the microphotographs were taken, certain scientists pronounced it ”the most remarkable natural imitation of an artificial object they had ever seen”. No doubt they would have said the same thing even if it had had a Nike logo embedded.

Now, science had said that Triassic rock was up to 300,000,000 years old. The Bible says that they are less than 10,000 years old. Somebody’s way off!

But now we have science which we’re told relies on facts and data with the object in hand and with the results of high magnification from every angle with which to produce more facts and data to decide the question. But would science’s loyalty be to the facts and the data or to the paradigm;—materialism, evolution and a very old universe? Faith defines what one believes but therefore also defines those things one cannot believe.

According to the discoverer and others who saw the microphotographs, under magnification, “the holes punched in the sole for stitching show very clearly, and even the twist of the thread used in the welt is developed”.

In microphotograph LH1, the right hand path of the stitching is clearly visible. “The twist of the thread is plainly visible … In micrograph, LH3 the stitching shows as having been doubled up for a portion of the distance around the sole.

In microphotograph LH2 there is a perfectly clear reproduction of the thread used in stitching the sole to the upper, and the spacing is clearly shown until it disappears beneath a portion of the sole”…

Reid, further discussing the results of the scientific testing on the fossil with the NY Times said; “It seems quite unnecessary for me to dwell on the remarkable resemblance to our modern shoe leather, as it appears reproduced here, in that it duplicates exactly in all respects the process that takes place in worn out shoes.”

…”In microphotograph LH2 ½ we have reproduced a portion of that contained in LH2, only on a scale of twenty times the magnification of the original specimen. In this highly magnified picture, the twist of the thread is distinctly visible. Its warp is brought out in unmistakable prominence. This admits of but one interpretation, which to all must be readily apparent, that this is the sole of a shoe that was surely done by the hand of man.”

All but two paleontologists and geologists to whom Reid had taken the fossil prior to the analysis insisted that it was simply a “freak of nature”. Those who accept the current ruling scientific paradigm really had no choice other than to refuse to accept the fossil as a shoe sole. Their faith demanded it.

If the fossil shoe had been confirmed by science, then either modern shoe-making man lived hundreds of millions of years ago—or Triassic rock is quite a bit younger than had been thought. At that time, human civilization was believed to have been between 5,000 and 10,000 years old.

Miners Watch Formation of Anthracite Coal-Supposedly 200 to 300 Million Years Old Form in 4 Months

There have doubtless been many previous discoveries of unexplained artifacts (unexplained by current paradigm) that would give the fossil shoe discovery some support. About 46 years prior to the discovery of the fossil shoe by a mining engineer, in 1876, another seemingly impossible and relevant discovery took place in the Indian Ridge Mining Shaft of the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Co.

This particular out of place artifact was more than 50 feet long with a six inch diameter.

The article appeared in the Shenandoah Herald in March 1876. “Strange Statement—The Process of the Formation of Anthracite Coal Discovered in the Indian Ridge Shaft”.

It should be mentioned that anthracite was a type of coal thought to have formed on the latter end of the 200 to 300 million age range given for the fossil shoe.

A pipe had been installed in the mine for the purpose of diverting water from a nearby stream that otherwise would have continuously poured down upon the miners. After some time, this six inch pipe became clogged with reddish brown sediment from the stream reducing the pipe opening to about two inches. At that point, the flow was diverted and a new pipe was installed.

Four months later, a portion of the old pipe was taken down.

“when broken open the wonderful phenomenon presented itself that the sediment was gradually changing into what appears to be anthracite coal. About a half inch of the inside of the sediment lining the pipe had been changed into coal and the remainder was also gradually changing….The process of the formation is plainly seen in the sediment next to that which had already turned into coal.”

“….Samples of coal taken from the pipe have been tried on the blacksmith fire at the colltery, and it makes an exceedingly hot fire, but being of a softer nature then the natural anthracite, it clunkers badly.

Fortunately there are any quantity of samples of the wonderful formation, and those who are unwilling to believe without themselves seeing and touching can be accommodated…..A section of the pipe of about 16 feet long has been left standing in the shaft to see what results will follow…..”

Chances are, you have never heard of this “discovery” and it is doubtful that any follow-up research was undertaken. It should be noted that the discovery took place in a coal mine, so that there were plenty of people there who were very familiar with types of coal. You could imagine that if they had found a way to turn sediment into gold—and it didn’t mess with the paradigm, you would have heard of it.

Finally, the writer of that 1876 Shenandoah Herald article challenges the experts;

“if anthracite coal will form from sediment deposited by water when exposed to the action of the atmosphere under certain conditions for a period as short as four months, what becomes of all the pet theories of the geologist and mining engineers on the subject?

How about the great heat, the millions of years of time and tremendous, pressure which according to the various theories of the heretofore accepted authorities were necessary to account for our deposits of the finest and best fuel yet found?”

These stories have important ramifications in terms of how paradigm shifting or paradigm conflicting data and artifacts are approached by science. We have every reason to believe that few of them will see the light of day and then that even if they do, science will never accept them as genuine, no matter what the objective evidence might show. We have every reason to believe as well that there are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of other paradigm shattering artifacts that have been found that we will never see or hear about.

The shoe fossil discoverer, John Reid, wanted to donate the fossil to some “scientific museum” so that others could see and make up their own minds.

This was unlikely to happen for obvious reasons.

See Also The Stones Cry Out Part 3;
Rock Solid Proof of Dinosaur and Human Interaction?

4th Edition

The Top 12 Science Stories of 2009 for Creationists/Believers.

Church of Darwin, Dinosaurs in Literature, Religious, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 04 2010


By Chris Parker & s8int.com, Copyright 2009

We thought that it might be fun and or interesting to compile a list of the science stories of 2009 that were most compatible with Special Creation; or which moved the scientific ball in that direction. Another basis for selecting these top 12 science stories for Creationists might be the illumination a story might shed on the myth of macro-evolution.

But first, a digression. I grew up reading science fiction stories. In my teen years I read science fiction almost exclusively. As a genre however, I’d say the themes of science fiction literature are at odds with the Bible more than any other. Its typically very humanist in its adoption of science and man as its heroes. Man can achieve through science, technology, grit, determination and that “special quality” that we alone possess says science fiction.

For non believers, there is something comforting in believing that though we are special, we are but one of thousands if not millions of alien species out there. These are “people” we can fight or form alliances with–but that we don’t have to bow down to. Even famous Atheist Dawkins, admitted that he could accept aliens as our creator–just not God.

Since the Bible places man at the “center of the universe”, the existence of aliens also refute the Bible and possibly the story of special creation in Genesis. The themes of science fiction typically conflict with those of the Bible.

I went to see Avatar last week and I enjoyed–the special effects. Mature Christians on a daily basis screen out news, information and media that conflict with their core beliefs. That’s why many of them don’t think its a big deal to see any movie regardless of theme. (For instance, they may take their kids to see a warlock hero movie knowing that according to Revelation; “those who practice magic arts” will be excluded from God’s Holy City” Rev 22.) How many Atheist parents do you suppose took their kids to see “The Ten Commandments” or “The Passion”?

I”ve had a few mature Christians tell me that they don’t need apologetics because their faith is strong. My question is; what about your young son or daughter or your grandson? Don’t they realize that many of them aren’t able to screen out the constant evolution/Atheist dogma that news and media put out there? Many of them find that when they reach college that they haven’t been prepared to deal with the scientific and philosophical challenges coming their way. There; because I said so or years of shrugs may not carry the day.

What I know about James Cameron, who directed Avatar is that he also was the Executive Producer behind the documentary:”The Lost Tomb of Jesus” which purported to have found the bones of Jesus Christ in a family tomb. They also suggested that He had a son with Mary Magdeline. In Avatar, he puts forth a “Mother Earth” Goddess and promotes the standard SciFi notion that consciousness can be stored on a computer.

Thankfully, secular scientists kicked dirt on his Jesus tomb and his “evidence” and like the first story on our List it has been given a wide berth.

Of course, such a list as this is totally and completely subjective. Here are our top 12 Science Stories of 2009 for Creationists/Believers.

1)The Fossil; Ida and the Explosive Pace of Evolution-ary Debunking

It was only about 7 months ago when “Science” came out with a multi-pronged, hard-hitting and extremely hyped story about a “missing link” about which it was said “This Changes Everything!”. They were referring of course to a tiny fossil that they had cleverly named “Ida” (for marketing purposes).

Ida was the subject of a simultaneous release of a book, a TV special and a scientific paper announcing its discovery. It would be impossible to overstate the hype associated with the fossil.

“This will be the one pictured in the textbooks for the next hundred years,” said Dr Jørn Hurum, the paleontologist from Oslo University’s Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil.”

Curiously, it was other evolutionists rather than Creationists who were most critical of both the hype machine and the science surrounding Ida. An independent scientific review failed to uphold the initial claims about Ida and by October 2009, the headlines were like this one in Discover Magazine; “Much-Hyped Primate Fossil “Ida” Probably Isn’t Our Ancestor …”

Time Magazine, Scientific American, NewScientist and a host of other Science media failed to list “This changes Everything, Ida” in their Top 10 Science Stories of 2009—not even as a debacle.

Ida was replaced at the top of Time’s list by Ardi, actually discovered in 1992 and claimed to be our oldest ancestor. Scientific American placed Ardi at #3 without even a mention of that game changer; Ida.

Signs are not so good for Ardi either however. The same skepticism that confronted the scientific claims made about Ida are now being directed towards Ardi. In an article in the November 2009 edition of Scientific American entitled “How Humanlike Was “Ardi”?, -Ardi proponents continued to claim that Ardi was a human ancestor who walked upright, however, other experts begged to differ: from the article; “But many others in the field propose that some of these statements may be overblown. In fact, Jungers (a professor at Stony Brook) says, “I think some of the things they said might have been for effect.”

The fossil Ida debacle was an important story for believers in 2009 because it was the most forceful and coordinated attempt ever by the evolutionary cabal to push their “science” down our throats and within seven months it was overthrown so effectively that even the evolutionists are busy trying to forget it.

2) There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Simple’ Organism

Mycoplasma pneumoniae, has only 1/5 the number of genes as E Coli the single celled bacterium which is the most frequently studied.

“What may be the most thorough study ever of a single organism has produced a beta code for life’s essential subroutines, and shown that even the simplest creatures are more complex than scientists suspected.

The analysis combined information about gene regulation, protein production and cell structure in Mycoplasma pneumoniae, one of the simplest self-sustaining microbes.” Wired Magazine.

In evolutionary theory, single cells were supposed to have arisen by chance and this simple life would lead to more complex life through a process of evolution. The problem for evolutionists/materialists is; even the simplest single cells are incredibly complex. How could such complex cells assemble themselves spontaneously? Obviously, they could not have.

3) Octopus Fossils, Allegedly 95 Million Years Old? Who Gets the Surprise-Evolutionists or Bible Believers?

Whenever one hears about ants or bees or spiders or wasps etc. being found in amber, which are supposedly millions of years old, take note; they are clearly recognizable as; ants, bees, spiders or wasps, no matter how old science claims that they are.

Each of these discoveries are brought to the public in isolation; but the consistent pattern in the discovery of “millions of years old” fossils or of preserved creatures is that they have not changed. Even minute changes that science might point to as showing “evolution” over time can be accounted for by the genetic variation inherent in species.

So the question is; when is this supposed “evolution” occurring?

Recently, scientists discovered octopus fossils which were supposedly 95 million years old from the Cretaceous. If you’re an evolutionist, you were surprised by what was found; they were “virtually identical” to “modern” octopi. If you are a Bible believer, this is exactly what you expected.

Ironically, the San Francisco Examiner placed this story at Number 3 on their own list of 2009 science stories because of the rareness of the discovery itself;

“What is truly astonishing to the scientists is how similar these ancient creatures are to their modern-day counterparts. Dirk Fuchs, lead author on the study stated, “These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species.” [EurekAlert]

Far and away, the best head in the sand, evolution quote of all however comes from Science Daily;

“This [lack of evolution] provides important evolutionary information.”

He who has an ear let him hear! Matt 11:15

4) Authenticated Human Footprint Overlaid by Dinosaur Print Found on Limestone Block

A Cretaceous Limestone block contains a human footprint overlaid with a dinosaur print.

“In early July, 2000 Alvis Delk, assisted by James Bishop (both of Stephenville, Texas), was working in the Cretaceous limestone on the McFall property at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas and discovered a pristine human footprint intruded by a dinosaur footprint.

This discovery was made in the vicinity of McFall I and II Sites where the Creation Evidence Museum team has excavated since the Spring of 1982. The eleven-inch human footprint matches seven other such footprints of the same dimensions in the “Sir George Series”, named in honor of His Excellency Governor General Ratu Sir George Cacobau of Fiji.

Scientific Verification of Footprint Authenticity: The fossil was transported to a professional laboratory where 800 X-rays were performed in a CT Scan procedure. Laboratory technicians verified compression and distribution features clearly seen in both prints, human and dinosaur. This removes any possibility that the prints were carved or altered.” … CREATION EVIDENCE MUSEUM…..
s8intcom source:

5) Everything You Know About Natural Selection Is Wrong
From: CreationEvolutionHeadlines.com

“Oct 16, 2009 — It’s called “a fresh theoretical framework” but it undermines the popular conception of natural selection. It’s called a “dense and deep work on the foundations of evolutionary biology” but it criticizes as simplistic and false the ideas of Richard Dawkins, one of the most outspoken proponents of natural selection as “the greatest show on earth.”

It produces a new scheme for how natural selection works, but raises more questions than it answers. What is it? It’s a new book by Harvard philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith, Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection (Oxford, 2009), reviewed mostly positively by Jay Odenbaugh in Science.

Odenbaugh is in the philosophy department of Lewis and Clark College, Oregon. Get ready to jettison your “classical” concepts of fitness, selection and reproductive success. Unload your simplistic ideas of gene selection, individual selection and group selection. Prepare to see Richard Dawkins demoted from his status as a leading spokesman for modern Darwinism. In his first paragraph, Odenbaugh clears the deck to get ready for the “fresh” ideas of Godfrey-Smith:

“Peter Godfrey-Smith’s Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection is a dense and deep work on the foundations of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biologists tell us that evolution by natural selection occurs when a few ingredients are present—specifically, when there is variation with respect to a trait, those variants differ in the numbers of offspring produced, and this variation is heritable to some degree.

Unfortunately, as Godfrey-Smith argues, this recipe is far too simple, and even more complicated versions such as the replicator approach offered by Richard Dawkins suffer serious flaws.

This “classical recipe,” for example, ignores the fact that for some organisms numbers of offspring don’t necessarily determine reproductive success (“fitness”) whereas rates of population growth, age structure, or variation in expected numbers of offspring do.

Likewise, natural selection and patterns of heredity can “cancel” each other out, leaving no evolutionary change. The concept of Dawkins’s replicators—those entities that interact with like entities and of which copies are made—presupposes that there can be no reproduction without replication, which is false when we have continuously varying traits evolving by natural selection.

Thus, our standard models for understanding what evolution by natural selection is are just too simple. “” Jay Odenbaugh in Science

Source: David Coppedge’s Creation-Evolution Headlines

6) A Third of Dinosaur Species Never Existed?

“That’s because young dinosaurs didn’t look like Mini-Me versions of their parents, according to new analyses by paleontologists Mark Goodwin, University of California, Berkeley, and Jack Horner, of Montana State University.

Instead, like birds and some other living animals, the juveniles went through dramatic physical changes during adulthood.

This means many fossils of young dinosaurs, including T. rex relatives, have been misidentified as unique species, the researchers argue. “ National Geographic News, Oct. 9, 2009

This combined with the news that scientists had overestimated the size of dinosaurs by as much as 50% (Dinosaurs Shed a Few Tons in Science Makeover)shows that certain scientists need to show a little more humility whilst pontificating about the “paleontological past” and—fewer dinosaurs needed for Noah’s Ark!

7) Dinosaur Proteins, Cells and Blood Vessels Recovered from Bracyhlophosaurus

Two years ago, when paleontologist Mary Schweitzer claimed to have obtained blood cells and collagen protein from the thigh bones of a fossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex, she got nothing but grief.
Paleontologists didn’t want to hear that living tissue had been found on a creature they claimed had lived and died more than 65 million years ago. They have in large measure refused to believe or accept that she had found living tissue.

Creationists on the other hand, were happy to accept that she had found living tissue, but rightly pointed out that it was a strong indication that this dinosaur had lived much more recently than science claimed. In fact, Christians rather expected that living tissue might be found on dinosaur remains.

This of course upset the evolutionists even more and did little for her credibility with her fellow paleontologists.

“Last year, one group reinterpreted the so-called soft tissues as nothing more than bacterial biofilms, “cities” of bacteria not unlike the plaque on your teeth or slime on moist rocks. ”

If Schweitzer keeps this up she might end up like Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who also gave them what they didn’t want. That’s because Schweitzer has done it again. This time she claims to have found living tissue in the bones of a dinosaur more than 80,000,000 years old.

We say, as long as we’re dealing with evolutionary “monopoly years”, why not living tissue a billion years old? And we say along with her fellow paleontologists; there’s no way that living tissue could survive that long in fossilized remains”…
Source:

#8) “So We Make Up Stories” About Human Evolution

“Dr. Richard Lewontin is the Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Harvard University Press describes him as one of their “most brilliant evolutionary biologists.” A Harvard professor since 1973, he has impeccable academic credentials, and has gained worldwide notoriety for authoring several books, including The Triple Helix, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, and Biology as Ideology.

During the week of February 14-18, Dr. Lewontin was invited to speak at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting held in Boston, Massachusetts. Michale Balter, writing for Science magazine, reported briefly on Lewontin’s comments that caused quite a stir in the evolutionary community.

Balter titled his article “How Human Intelligence Evolved—Is It Science or ‘Paleofantasy’?” (2008). In the first paragraph, Balter quipped that Lewontin really “knows how to grab an audience’s attention.”

What did Lewontin say that was so noteworthy and attention-grabbing? Lewontin “led off a session titled ‘The Mind of a Toolmaker’ by announcing that scientists know next to nothing about how humans got so smart.

‘We are missing the fossil record of human cognition,’ Lewontin said at the meeting. ‘So we make up stories’” (Balter, 2008, emp. added). While Balter spent the rest of his article scrambling to show that Lewontin’s conclusions are not recognized by all in the scientific community, Lewontin’s devastating blow to evolution’s long-cherished scenario of human development could not be papered over so easily”… by Kyle Butt, M.A. Apologetic’s Press

9) The Copernican Gambit

In this cosmic game of chess, which has been going on at least from the time of the scientific revolution, there have been moves and countermoves on the part of Theists and Materialists with respect to the origin of the universe.

We live in a universe fine tuned for life. This knowledge grudgingly comes from science, not from believers, even though it is what we would expect. Science is stuck on its side of the chessboard throwing out weird defenses like dark matter and dark energy which are needed to make big bang work.

This dark matter and energy which supposedly accounts for 95% of matter and energy can’t be seen, tested or measured. This kind of thing, along with superstring theory, which also can’t be falsified or tested, is making it difficult for the well read Materialist to be intellectually fulfilled.

“But now, scientists “Blake Temple and Joel Smoller, mathematicians at the University of California and the University of Michigan, believe they have come up with a whole new set of calculations that allow for all the sums to add up without the need for this controversial substance.” ..Telegraph.co.uk

At the last moment, a new strategy; the Copernican Gambit; (our name) a possible way to fix the big bang theory and to free materialists from the pressure of defending a theory that only accounts for 4% to 5% of observations. Can materialistic creation be saved?

‘The new research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, is likely to be equally controversial as the work it purports to challenge especially as it relies on our galaxy being at the centre of the Universe”…. Telegraph.co.uk

The Copernican principle is the presumption that there is nothing special about our place in space and time; neither us humans nor our planet. That principle moved earth and man out of the center of the universe (as Genesis seems to place us) and makes the earth just another lonely planet circling a star. This theory would relieve science of the need to invent and sustain its mystical darks but would place earth and man squarely back into the center of the universe.

“Just when we thought we were out, (of the center) they pulled us back in”!

It probably should be called the “Reverse Copernican Gambit”.
Check—mate?
Orginal s8int.com treatment here

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

The great climate change science scandal. Thousands of leaked e-mails have
revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming. Thus, a little of the “Inconvenient Truth” leaked out.

The emails indicate that they have hidden, obscured and even deleted data contrary to the global warming case. They have worked to deny skeptics the right to publish dissent in scientific journals and have created statistical ‘tricks” to make charts appear to show what they want them to show.

Believers should along with everyone else do everything they can to take care of our planet. Believers do believe that the world will end with “fervent heat” but that the cause will be God—not man.

More Here

11) Mammoth, Giant Sloth and the Whale Fossils found ‘Together” at Thomas Jefferson Law School Construction Site

How does science account for the discovery of the fossils of giant land and ocean creatures together in such close proximity? Fossils are rare because the conditions necessary for their formation are thought to be rare.

What calamity could account for the simultaneous death, instant burial and preservation of these giant sea and land creatures?

Believers should have little trouble conceiving of just such a scenario. Consult the book of Genesis.

Orginal s8int.com post: “This Weak in Fossils”

12) Poll Reveals Public Doubts over Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Belief in creationism is widespread in Britain, according to a new survey.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Telegraph UK 31 Jan 2009

“This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species.

More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a “designer” must have lent a hand, the findings suggest. And one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years. ” … Jonathan Wynne-Jones

Orginal Post

This was our own subjective list of the Top Science Stories of 2009 for Christians. I’m sure that our list missed some important news. What do you think?

To comment, send an email to s8intcom@comcast.net and we’ll post here for you.

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

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, 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 , Mercola.com,

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? …… PhilCoppens.com

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

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

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 03 2009

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IubRw2ko69U
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”….…s8int.com

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

The Fossil Giants of Castelnau

Church of Darwin, Giants in Those Days, s8int.com, Science, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Sep 18 2009

Mr. M. G. de Lapouge had several problems that he needed to try to solve simultaneously back in 1890. Number one, he was a prominent scientist of his time, with a good reputation so why should he be publishing an article in a scientific journal concerning human giants–and of a “type”* evolutionists considered modern?

*Here at s8int.com, we believe that there is only and has only been one “type” of human being. Science has called Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon “prehistoric” and other humans modern.

Secondly, who were these giants who were modern in “type” but enormous when the two groups considered ancestral; Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal were reasonably of the same size of modern humans? Mr. de Lapouge had found evidence in a vast graveyard near Castelnau, France, in the form of fossil bones of a teenager at least seven foot tall and of another enormous man who was close to 12 feet tall.

Writing in La Nature: revue des sciences et de leurs applications aux arts …, Volume 18, in 1890, under the title “The Fossil Giants of Castelnau”, de Lapouge took a calculated risk in presenting his findings to a skeptical scientific audience, which he acknowledges.

De Lapouge noted that no one would contest the fact that giant (mega) animals had existed in the past, quite apart from dinosaurs. Wouldn’t it seem reasonable, he wrote that at the time of the existence of these giant animals that man retained the same ratio of size to those creatures that he exhibits today?

Good question. The answer to his conundrum: “there were giants in the earth in those days..”..(Gen 6) and Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal were not “ancestors”-they lived in contemporary times.

Perhaps there was a time, pre-flood when every creature was large compared to today and that after the flood some of these giants still remained? ….s8int.com

Excerpt from: La Nature: revue des sciences et de leurs applications aux arts …, Volume 18, 1890

“Giants figure so often in our legends and the most ancient histories of the world that it has been a serious question whether a race of gigantic men has not existed at some remote period of time—for example, during the quaternary epochs of the large mammals, the mastodon, mammoth, and so on—and whether the type may not have survived into later times.

Pigmies would have a better chance of continuing to subsist under the supremacy of the normal man. The giants, like the greater quadrupeds, would be exterminated. Our oldest human fossils, however, such as the Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon skulls, do not indicate an extraordinary stature.

Very tall skeletons have, no doubt, been found in some dolmens and barrows, but they are supposed to belong to the Bronze Age race, which is still an element of the European population. M. G. de Lapouge has recently made a discovery which tends to re-open this question.

At the prehistoric cemetery of Castelnau, near Montpellier, which dates from the eras of polished stone and bronze, he found last winter, among many crania, one of enormous size, which could only belong to a man very much over 2 meters (6 ft. 6 in.) in height, and of a morphologic type common in the dolmens of Lozère.

It was the skull of a healthy youth about 18 years of age.

Moreover, in the earth of a tumulus of vast extent, containing cists of the Bronze Age, more or less injured by superposed sepulchers of the early Iron Age, he found some fragments of incontestably human bones of enormous size. For instance, part of a tibia 0.16 meter in circumference, part of a femur 0.13 meter in girth, and the inferior part of a humerus twice the ordinary dimensions.

Everything considered M. de Lapouge estimates that the height of this subject must have been about 3½ meters (11.5 ft.)—that is to say, a veritable giant, according to the popular notion.

He must have lived during the quaternary period or the beginning of the present, but whether he was an instance of hypertrophy or one of an extinct race of giants, it is impossible as yet to say. Singularly enough, tradition fixes the valley of a giant very near the spot in the cavern of Castelnau where the bones have been taken from the tumulus.”

Source:Google Books Online: The Fossil Giants of Castelnau

The Religious Devotion to the Dogma

I love this; an eminent scientist of the time, M. Keiner, a professor of pathology at Montpeiller University, had an opportunity to examine the bones in question. He reluctantly it seems agreed that the bones were human, and that they were “twice the ordinary size”.

However, since he ascribed the size of the bones to an “abnormailty”, he was able to claim that the question as to whether there had indeed been “giants in those days” –to be “unsettled”!

Oh, science, if a twelve foot human skeleton is not evidence that giants existed, what then would be required for proof?…s8int.com

A Race of Giants in Old Gaul

From the London Globe

In the year 1890 some bones of enormous size, double the ordinary in fact, were found in the tumulus of Castelnau, (Herault) and have since been carefully examined by Prof. Keiner, who while admitting that the bones are those of a very tall race, nevertheless finds them abnormal in dimensions and apparently of morbid growth.

They undoubtedly reopen the question of the “giants” of antiquity, but do not furnish sufficient evidence to decide it.

Reprinted in the New York Times, Oct. 3, 1892

Thanks to: James. S.