Posts Tagged ‘God’

Three Cryptozoological Mysteries: The Penn State Dinosaur that Was?; the Ancient Chinese Rhinoceros that Wasn’t; and the 19th Century Pterosaur Displaying Previously Unknown Morphological Features That Might Have Been

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, s8int.com, Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 04 2012


By Chris Parker

I’m thinking that maybe the best part of my articles are the titles. Should I just stop right here? After all these years I’m still a hunt and peck typist and that took something out of me already. Where’s that Dragon Naturally speaking program?

The Penn State Dinosaur that Was?

Dragon? Oh yeah, naturally, let’s start with the Penn State “dragon”.

To be fair, they don’t call this one a dragon; they call it “zoomorphic”. If you’re interested in looking for dinosaurs in the art of the ancient peoples-in the art of people who lived within the last 5,000 years or so and have an opportunity to search a database of objects, try the words; dragon, zoomorphic, mythical, beast, grotesque, reptile or unknown creature.

This is not to say that these objects will necessarily be depictions of dinosaurs, I’m just saying searching ancient art using the term “dinosaur” is not a profitable enterprise.

I grew up believing that dinosaurs and man lived together as the Bible would have us believe, (calling them dragons). There was a time when I was less than convinced and so set out to find out the truth for myself. Subsequently it’s been confirmed by me after I’ve had the opportunity to search university databases and to view hundreds of thousands of pieces of ancient art in museum collections and for sale in private auctions that we did live within the time of the dinosaurs and that the proof is there.

As for ancient artifacts, the more they resemble a dinosaur, the less likely they will be on public view in a museum and the less valuable they will be. No museum wants to buy your ancient Aztec dinosaur.

Anyway, I read recently that the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology was opening its collection of over 1 million objects to public view through a free online archive;

“Since its founding in 1887, the Penn Museum has collected around one million objects, many obtained directly through its own field excavations or anthropological research. Search the Penn Museum’s digital collections including 326,000 object records representing 660,000 objects with 51,500 images.”

Naturally, my immediate thought was; “I wonder if I can find some dinosaurs in that collection”. First, I searched for the word, “dragon”. Slim pickings. Then I searched the word zoomorphic. This is one of the items I discovered.

Zoomorphic Vessel,
Object Number:
35618
Provenience:
Bolivia
Cachilaya
Section:
American
Materials:
Stone
Description:
In shape of a lizard
Credit Line:
Max Uhle, William Pepper Peruvian Expedition, Funded by Phebe A. Hearst
Other Number / Type:
362 / Field No SF

In the shape of a lizard! But no lizard ever looked like that in my estimation. However, being able to call the object; “zoomorphic” and a “lizard” is why you’re getting to see the object in the first place. Any objects which would have to be classified a “dinosaur” are by definition; fakes.

On the other hand since my impression of the object is that it represents a dinosaur, I have to ask myself; what kind of dinosaur? It appears to be a quadrupedal dinosaur, but it is not long necked like a sauropod or even a prosauropod and it is not an armored dinosaur, nor one of the horned dinosaurs of the ceratopsian family.

This is what I did; I Googled; short necked South American dinosaurs and began perusing that group to see if modern day paleontologists had discovered a short necked, squat, quadrupedal dinosaur in South America, preferably in the Bolivian area which corresponded with an ancient artists depiction of a dinosaur living in his time. Did you follow that?

Here’s what I found.


“Brachy-trachelopan is an unusual short-necked sauropod dinosaur from the latest Jurassic Period (Tithonian) of Argentina. The holotype and only known specimen (Museo Paleontológico Egidio Feruglio MPEF-PV 1716) was collected from an erosional exposure of fluvial sandstone within the Cañadón Cálcero Formation on a hill approximately 25 km north-northeast of Cerro Cóndor, Chubut Province, in west-central Argentina, South America.

Though very incomplete, the skeletal elements recovered were found in articulation and include eight cervical, twelve dorsal, and three sacral vertebrae, as well as proximal portions of the posterior cervical ribs and all the doral ribs, the distal end of the left femur, the proximal end of the left tibia, and the right ilium. Much of the specimen was probably lost to erosion many years before its discovery. The type species is Brachytrachelopan mesai. The specific name honours Daniel Mesa, a local shepherd who discovered the specimen while searching for lost sheep. The genus name translates as “short-necked Pan”, Pan being the god of the shepherds.”…Wikipedia

Distance from Bolivia to Argentina? 1500 Miles. So could Brachytrachelopan have had a range of 1500 miles on the South American continent? Is this the least scientific investigation possible?

No, see paleontology.

Could this ancient piece represent in an artful, non literal way a quadrupedal dinosaur like Brachytrachelopan living not millions of years ago but less than a thousand years ago on the South American continent or; is it just a fat lizard?

You’ll have to decide that for yourself.

 

The Ancient Chinese Rhinoceros that Wasn’t


I was saving this as an entry in Part 2 of my Article: Crouching Dragon, Hidden Dinosaur; How Evolutionary Science Hides Historical Man and Dinosaur Interaction in Plain Sight but since that hasn’t been compiled yet I’ll place two planned entries for that article here.

Along with euphemisms like “zoomorphic”, “mythical” and ‘dragon” that it turns out are often appended to the rare depiction of the dinosaur found in museum collections and at private auction sales is the tendency to misidentify animal depictions.

This is because when the curator is not sure what creature it is that is being represented by the ancient artist he still likes to come up with an answer that is not outside the realm of currently accepted science and which satisfies the potential customer.

It’s an ancient Chinese bear, a new owner might say proudly to his houseguests as they stare into his lighted display case at what is actually a ground sloth. Everyone still oohs and ahhs.

This particular piece was sold at auction at Christie’s auction house in 2007 for $216,000. Here is the description:

Lot Description A RARE AND SMALL BRONZE FIGURE OF A RHINOCEROS
TANG DYNASTY (618-907 AD)

Shown standing four-square with tail flicked to the left, the head well cast with two horns of different length, ears pricked back, small eyes and downward curved, overlapping muzzle sensitively cast along the upper edges of the mouth with folds in the skin, which can also be seen in the skin of the neck and chest, the thick hide indicated by overlapping wave pattern diminishing in size on the head and legs, with a rectangular aperture in the belly, the dark brownish surface with some patches of dark red patina and green encrustation.

Lot Notes The depiction of the rhinoceros in bronze is very rare, especially during the Tang period. Earlier depictions do exist, however, as evidenced by the late Shang rhinoceros zun in the Avery Brundage Collection, illustrated by d’Argencè, The Ancient Chinese Bronzes, San Francisco, 1966, pl. XIX and another large zun (22 7/8in. long), ornately decorated, but quite realistic in its depiction of a rhinoceros, of late Eastern Zhou/Western Han dynasty date, found in Xingping Xian, Shaanxi province, included in the exhibition, The Great Bronze Age of China, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1980, New York, Catalogue, no. 93


Here’s the problem though; this is Not a depiction of a rhinoceros! (I studied economics in college so….). For one thing, I’ve looked at hundreds if not more than a thousand photographs and depictions of rhinoceri and you’ll not find a single one of them who has horns that point forward. All rhinoceros horns curve backwards.

Small detail, I know but if you look closely at and compare this depiction with that of the rhinoceros you’ll begin to see the differences. For instance, this creature has a beak! No self respecting rhino would sport a “beak” because rhinos do not have “beaks’. Additionally, this rhino has a horn that projects straight up out of the top of his skull. That would appear to be a rhino no no.

There are other differences; the rhino has a sway back, this creature’s back is convex, etc. etc. Did you notice that he’s not wearing the little rhino coat that rhinos seem to wear where there legs seems to be poking out of the short sleeves?

Is there an ancient, perhaps extinct creature with perhaps the size of a rhino, (or larger) horned but with a “beak”? (I may have tipped my hand with the adjacent photo).


Well, the ceratopsia certainly had beaks and ceratopsia does mean “horned face”. After studying members of the ceratopsian family it appears that the comparison with this artifact is pretty solid but; there is one thing missing; the neck frill.

Most if not all known ceratopsian dinosaurs were supposed to have a neck frill although there are some differences among scientists as too how the neck frill appeared.

Also, I can find no photo of the object that shows the tail; only the statement that it curves off to the left. But can a rhino tail do anything but hang? Seeing the tail would answer some questions perhaps because a ceratopsian like tail would certainly rule out the rhino while a rhino like tail would create more questions.

Could this be a yet undiscovered version of a ceratopsian dinosaur without the neck frill? I am put in mind of the Emela-ntouka.
(Although it could also be perspective. The outline of the frill along with the convincing detail of the ceratopsian ‘cheek” may be in evidence).

“The Emela-ntouka is an African legendary creature in the mythology of the Pygmy tribes, and a cryptid purported to live in Central Africa. Its name means “killer of the elephants” in the Lingala language.

In other languages it is known as the Aseka-moke, Njago-gunda, Ngamba-namae, Chipekwe or Irizima. The Emela-ntouka is claimed to be around the size of an African Bush Elephant, brownish to gray in color, with a heavy tail, and with a body of similar shape and appearance to a rhinoceros, including one long horn on its snout. Keeping its massive bulky body above ground level supposedly requires four short, stump-like legs.

It is described as having no frills or ridges along the neck. The animal is alleged to be semi-aquatic and feed on Malombo and other leafy plants. The Emela-ntouka is claimed to utter a vocalization, described as a snort, rumble or growl….Wikipedia

For more information on Emela-ntouka here is a story on Cryptomundo

Here is another aspect of this mystery; Chinese unicorns.

I was researching ancient Chinese rhinos and discovered that somehow there had come to be a conflagration of the rhino and the unicorn; the combo is known today as the “rhinoceros unicorn”. The ancient Chinese unicorn has a frame around its head that somewhat reminds one of the ceratopsian neck frill.

One Chinese site (Chinese-Unicorn.coms) sets out to prove in what would be our 4th cryptozoological mystery that the supposed 50,000 years extinct Elasmotherium is the actual creature being depicted as the ancient Chinese unicorn. Since monokeros is the Greek word meaning “one horn” from which the word unicorn comes to us, the elasmotherium is accurately described as a unicorn whether or not it was the “unicorn”.

Elasmotherium (“Thin Plate Beast”) is an extinct genus of giant rhinoceros endemic to Eurasia during the Late Pliocene through the Pleistocene, documented from 2.6 Ma to as late as 50,000 years ago, possibly later, in the Late Pleistocene, an approximate span of slightly less than 2.6 million years. Three species are recognised. The best known, E. sibiricum was the size of a mammoth and is thought to have borne a large, thick horn on its forehead which was used for defense, attracting mates, driving away competitors, sweeping snow from the grass in winter and digging for water and plant roots”….Wikipedia

Here we show an artists depiction of elasmotherium along with two ancient depictions of the unicorn. Left, Eastern Han Dynasty, 206 B.C. – 220 A.D. right, also Eastern Han Dynasty.

What is the being depicted in the object that sold at Christie’s auction in 2007 for $216K? A mythical creature? A ceratopsian? Emela-ntouka?

What it is is a genuine crptozoological mystery.

What it ain’t is a rhinoceros.

 

20th Century Pterosaur Displaying Previously Unknown Morphological Features That Might Have Been

Iola Register, September 25, 1896
CAUGHT IN FLORIDA. MARKET REPORTS.
Marine Monster Tbat Is Part Fish Part
Bird Part Animal.

“Sea serpents are becoming too common, and when Florida people decided to produce a marine monster the serpent family was ignored and the Diabolus Maris was produced.

The picture which is presented was made from a drawing sent to the Kansas City Journal by Capt. George Bier, of the United States Navy.


The animal was caught off the coast of Florida, at Malanzas inlet, in 72 feet of water. It was caught on a hook and line, and when dragged aboard the boat was full of fight.
In order to preserve the strange monster it was found necessary to kill it, for it was so vicious that it could not be handled.

This remarkable relic of the antediluvian monster seemed to be part bird, part fish and part animal.

Capt. Bier described it as follows:

“It has no scales, although it can swim. A portion of its body is covered with hair and when it wants to fly it inflates two windbags behind its wings. This Inflation is through its gills, which are situated on its breast. It stands upright upon its feet, which are shaped like hoofs. Its face and body are more human like than anything else and its mouth is like that of a raccoon, garnished with two rows of teeth. It stood about 20 inches high and strutted like a rooster.”

Above and below the creature compared to a “modern” pteosaur depiction and below to an antique African pterosaur depiction.

>
After its capture the monster was christened DIABOLUS MARIS, and was transferred to Tampa. Fla. where it has since been on exhibition. Naturalists who have seen it can find no other name for it, and it’s like has never been seen before.

Some fish have fins that resemble wings, and can be used for flying, but fish do not wear hair.

The presence of legs prove that it is not a fish, and its ability to live under water and the gills
prove that it is not a bird.”…End of article

Question? If pterosaurs had an air bladder on their backs that could be filled with air to assist them in flight would we be able to determine this from fossils?

Would an air bladder help to explain how such large creatures could get off the ground? Paleontologists are so confused by the subject that they recently released to widely separated “studies” reported heavily in the media that reached two opposite conclusions; pterosaurs could not fly and alternatively they were the best flyers ever. (Couldn’t Fly-Mar 2009
Could Fly 10,000 Miles-Oct 2010)

Did we know that pterosaurs had “hair” or that they may have been able to breathe under water? That they had gills?

“The pterosaurs seem to have been able to fly soon after birth ( as possibly were some ancestral birds which means that during this prodigious growth their aerodynamics had to be functional at all times. In contrast, modern birds are born flightless and only begin to fly at nearly adult size.” .BBC Science

It makes more sense that God created pterosaurs with the ability to fly utilizing wings and air bladders than to believe that mutation and survival of the fittest created winged flightless creatures, eh Paleontologists?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Math Musings

Church of Darwin | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 20 2011

By: Joli Storm, Rocky Mountain Creation Fellowship
Reprinted by Permission, Thanks!

“Do not worry about your difficulties in mathematics; I can assure you that mine are still greater.” Albert Einstein

I love math. I’m not so good at it now that I’ve had three children, and have lost my mind ( I always say that my brains came out with my babies…) but I still love it. Let me briefly plunge you into the world of mathematics which I love so very much!

Back in 1986 or so, at Texas Tech University, my undergraduate differential equations professor told our class that many events in life can be described by differential equations. Then he told us that even earthquakes, which seem to us chaotic and unpredictable, can be described by differential equations. That rattled my mind! On a different and earlier note, I failed miserably at calculus based physics because I couldn’t get a grasp on the math involved!

A few years later, in a math seminar in graduate school, a professor was expounding on his research about where to amputate a person’s leg so that mathematically, they had the greatest range of motion for their prosthetic. I was amazed that something as serious as an amputation critically depended on mathematics!

The deeper I delved into math, the more I discovered that EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING, PERIOD follows mathematical principles. There are equations and/or expressions or a series of equations and/or expressions to describe everything, every movement every living being makes, walking, sitting, eating, speaking, etc. They describe every movement every non-living thing makes: planetary motion, waves in the ocean, a flag or blade of grass blowing in the wind, etc. Math describes every sound and every color imaginable. There are even equations and/or expressions to describe weather patterns and earthquakes. Some of these equations and expressions are unknown and are highly complicated. The largest galaxies in the universe down to the smallest particles known or unknown to man follow mathematical properties. Even chaos is mathematical. The concepts in physics, chemistry, and biology ALL boil down to mathematics.

Math also describes an unimaginably huge UNIVERSE of ideas which don’t represent the physical world! To prove and study anything–when it comes right down to it, requires math–in physics on the sub-atomic level or when proving things about galaxies.

Think about it.

Can we see quarks and muons, which are smaller than electrons, or can we see galaxies at the furthest reaches of the universe? We (I use that term loosely, because it surely doesn’t include me!) use mathematics as our eyes to “see” the unseen. We prove they exist by using mathematics.

Mathematics is literally intricately involved in the air we breathe, and of course all of the atoms in the molecules in the air follow mathematical principles. DNA also follows mathematical principles, and babies being put together in their mommies’ tummies follow mathematics.

Our brain function absolutely abides by mathematical principles. Even the process of decision making is mathematical. Time itself is mathematical. Electricity follows mathematical principles. All our machines and computers operate using mathematical principles. In business, it’s a given that math is indispensable, and even at the governmental level math is required.

Math is used for measuring. We measure time, populations, etc. and our society seems to love statistics. Environmentally if something needs to be proven it has to be done mathematically (e.g., counting how much particulate matter is in the air or water). And don’t forget about the medical field, sports, architecture, music, and shopping! Does history involve mathematics? You bet it does!

Again, some of these equations or expressions are known and many are unknown. The mind blowing part is that for us to live our lives, we never are required to know ALL the mathematics supporting our lives! What is also so fascinating about math is that it is so incredibly complicated that even the most brilliant of minds (like Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, just to name two) couldn’t and can’t completely comprehend it, and yet it is so simple, that even my oldest child, when she was two years old, could comprehend counting and adding one plus one.

So my question to you is, “Where did math come from?” Where did something, which describes EVERYTHING, come from? Where did something that EVERYTHING in the universe abides by, come from? Where did something which is so incredibly complicated that even the MOST brilliant minds in the WORLD don’t fully understand it, and yet so simple that a child can comprehend it, come from? Did we invent it? Did it evolve?

I dare to say that it existed way before humans ever showed up. I dare to say that it existed before matter or energy existed, since matter and energy ABIDE by it, too! Man did, however, discover ways to take math which can’t be seen and give it symbols so that it can be “seen”. That in itself is fascinating to me. That the numbers and symbols of mathematics give us mental eyes to see, operate, and understand the mathematics which in turn help us to see our world and universe and beyond.

So where did math come from? The conclusion I draw from all of this is that it came from an intelligence way far beyond the intelligence of ANY human or super computer. I believe it came straight from the mind of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving, everywhere-present, unimaginably intelligent Creator, since math is basically that way (well, maybe math isn’t loving–though love could be a part of math which is undiscovered…and love does happen in the mind, which operates on mathematical principles…).

So “What or who is this intelligence?” is my next question. I believe this intelligence is the God presented in the Bible. This God and Creator took these mathematical principles, equations, and expressions, which came from his heart, and gave them unbelievably beautiful physical form and function. There is MUCH more substantiation than just what I believe. Also, look at what is written about Him in the Bible. I got everything from the New King James Version, unless otherwise noted.

John 1:1-4 (Living New Testament version)
Before anything else existed, there was Christ, with God. He has always been alive and is himself God. He created everything there is nothing exists that He didn’t make. Eternal life is in Him, and this life gives light to all mankind.

Proverbs 3:19-20
The Lord by wisdom founded the earth; by understanding He established the heavens; by His knowledge the depths were broken up and clouds drop down dew.

Job 38:4-6
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone…

Amos 5:8
He made the Pleiades and Orion; He turns the shadow of death into morning and makes the day dark as night; He calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth; the Lord is His name.

Amos 9:6
He who builds His layers in the sky and has founded His strata in the earth; who calls for the waters of the sea and pours them out on the face of the earth-the Lord is His name.

Zechariah 12:1
…Thus says the Lord, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him…

Daniel 5:23
… and the God who holds your breath in His hand and owns all your ways…

Job 33:4
The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life.

Now for the next part of my musings… From these verses, it sounds like this God is basically untouchable. Is He? Does He care? Can a person actually KNOW Him?

Psalm 139:1-4,13,15,16 (I can’t remember what version this is from. I had it written down a few years ago.)

Oh Lord you have searched me and known me. You know my sitting down and my rising up; even from a distance You know what I’m thinking. You comprehend my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. You know everything I’m going to say before I start the first sentence… You know exactly how I was made, bit by bit, how I was sculpted from nothing into something. Like an open book, you watched me grow from conception to birth; all the stages of my life were spread out before you, the days of my life all prepared before I’d even lived one day.

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, (Jesus) that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Romans 10:9,10
…that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation.

Can you believe I actually have more math musings? It seems that math mirrors some characteristics of God. For instance, God is infinite in all directions. He had no beginning and will have no end. That’s just like numbers. They have no beginning, because any number you start counting with, there’s always a number smaller, just subtract 1 from it. There is no end to numbers because any number you end with, just add one. Even between EVERY number, there are infinite sets of numbers, which have no beginning and no end.

Next is an idea I’ve mentioned earlier. Math is so extremely complicated that even the most brilliant of minds cannot fully comprehend or understand it, and yet it is so simple that even a child can learn it. That is just like God! He is so extremely complicated that no human or computer could ever figure Him out, and yet He is so simple, that even a child can understand Him and love Him.

I’m going to have a little trouble getting these next ideas across, so please hang with me. Sometimes, in trying to prove something, people will take an isolated event and extrapolate it so as to explain thousands of events. We seem to do that with God, also. It is SO easy to look at one part of our view of God and then draw conclusions like we know ALL about God. A way that math also mirrors God is that people will form a negative image of math for whatever reasons, usually a bad experience with it or a bad experience with a teacher, and people do that with God also. We just can’t know all there is to know about math, just like we can’t know all there is to know about God.

I really think that math comes straight from the heart of God and is evidence of God’s love and His order in the universe. EVERYTHING is based on it. It is the blue print of the universe. Also, in order to understand and go further in math, LOTS of time and effort must be spent on it and with it. This is the same with God. People can’t just hear about Him once and then know all there is to know. Time and effort must be spent with God and His word in order to know Him more deeply.

So another question I have for you is, knowing the beauty and intricacies of math thus far, do you think that math is a key for unlocking the secrets of the universe? An even more complicated and important question is, if atheists or skeptics were aware of the concepts of mathematics as set forth here, could they be led to believe in a creator? Can they possibly understand that the origin of something that is so highly complicated that even they themselves, and their idols such as Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, can’t fully comprehend could not have even remotely evolved?

Well, it’s time for my math musings to end and for me to get back into the “mommy mode”. Actually, after just about every sentence here, I’ve had to wipe a nose, answer a question, aid in an argument, tend to an “owie”, get a drink or snack for some hungry munchkins, answer the phone, and clean up a multitude of messes made!

I love math! I love the implications inherent in mathematics which point directly to our wonderful Creator! I hope that through these musings, your love and appreciation of mathematics has grown, and that your love and appreciation of the absolute incomprehensivity (one of those made up words) of our loving Father has grown, also.

NOTE: One of my favorite sayings is “Don’t believe everything you think.” So just because “I think” something doesn’t make it truth! There are several books I like which show tons of historical and archeological evidence for things in the Bible. Two of them are Josh McDowell’s Evidence Which Demands a Verdict, Volumes I & II, but there are many, many more! Thanks.

Source

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Were/Are Pterosaurs Bi-Peds or Quadrupeds? The Ancient Maya Weigh In?

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Oct 21 2011

Photo: Mayan Peten Bowl
500 AD. to 800 AD. $1,895.00
“From ancient Mexico, Mayan, Peten region. Extremely fine and rare polychrome pottery bowl depicting the three failed attempts to create human beings – as published in the Maya Popol Vuh.” Gallery
Private collection

Well, here they are again; pterosaurs. If anyone out there consistently reads this blog it must seem as though pterosaurs are my favorite topic. That’s really not the case; they just seem to come up so frequently as a subject of ancient art is all. Honestly, my interests are broader than it would sometimes seem. I take them as they come.

Pterosaurs had three fingered “hands” attached to their wings at the pinky (a very long pinkie) and of course hind legs. Scientists have gone back and forth on the topic of pterosaur ground locomotion for years. Did they walk bi pedally or did they walk on all fours similar to a quadruped-or both?

The ancient Mayans weigh in with a partial answer; they could and did apparently walk on all fours. Prior specimens of ancient art that we’ve featured here indicate that they were bi pedal as well. The style and nature of this painting made it difficult for experts to identify the creature being portrayed on this ancient piece and they’ve concocted quite the story.

A comparison with recent mind’s eye depictions of pterosaurs on the ground may help the open minded see what the artist was apparently actually depicting; an out of time and place, pterosaur if you adhere to the current paradigm’s version of earth’s history.

“When setting out to restore fossil animals, an artist is faced with a unique problem that is not often faced by scientists. Where a scientist can reasonably reach the conclusion that something is not—or cannot be— known, a palaeontological artist is forced to reach conclusions on things which are unknown, and perhaps always will be.

An artist can’t paint a pterosaur in “don’t know” colours, or behaving in a “don’t know” way. Restoring pterosaurs, therefore, not only requires research into what is known about pterosaur’s anatomy, behaviour, and environment, but also a method for building up complete picture, even when there is little or no evidence to be had.”… John Conway Pterosaur Restoration.net

On Pterosaur Locomotion

“It didn’t take long for early pterosaur workers to figure out that pterosaurs were flying animals. Their hyperelongate forelimbs, fused torso elements, robust shoulder girdle and pectoral elements are clear indications that pterosaurs were adapted for self-propelled flight and, although some arguments have raged over the finer details of their flight styles, no-one has questioned their basic volant ability.


However, the same cannot be said for pterosaur terrestrial ability: for almost as long as pterosaurs have been known, little consensus has existed on both how and how well pterosaurs would be able to move on land. Early workers thought pterosaurs were probably relatively confident terrestrial locomotors, although no-one could agree whether they would stand in a bird-like, bipedal fashion, a lizard-like quadrupedal configuration or an erect, mammal-like quadrupedal stance.

Pterosaurologists of the mid-20th century took a dimmer view: these workers suggested that pterosaurs could barely stand, let alone walk, and would have to push themselves over the ground with dragging bellies and useless forelimbs held aloft.

Opinions changed in the 1980s when several pterosaur workers attempted biomechanical studies of pterosaur limbs in efforts to figure out their terrestrial competence: alas, this confused matters further as different interpretations of the same material led to drastically different conclusions.

In the space of a decade, pterosaurs were restored as dinosaur-like bipeds, penguin-like bipeds, sprawled-limbed quadrupeds and erect-limbed quadrupeds.”… Mark Witton Pterosaur Terrestrial Locomotion

So There You Have It?

“So there you have it. The answer is: Both.


Pterosaurs were both plantigrade and digitigrade. Pterosaurs were both bipedal and quadrupedal. Pedal digit 5 was useful for basal pterosaurs, but not for derived flatfoots. All of these traits are like those of living lizards, the ones capable of standing, walking and running bipedally.

At such times, these lizards turn from plantigrady to digitigrady without overextending the metatarsophalangeal joints, without having symmetrical pedes and without having all of the various morphological advantages that pterosaurs enjoyed, such as an anteriorly elongated ilium, an expanded sacral series for balance and prepubes to help elevate their femora. Pterosaurs likely took off bipedally, NOT with their forelimbs as described here.

They certainly had to land bipedally.”

Pterosaurs: Bipedal? Quadrupedal? or Both?
The Pterosaur Heresies

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Survival of the Fittest? The Creation Museum A Natural Selection? Museum Thriving in its Environment

Church of Darwin, Dinosaurs in Literature, Religious, Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 17 2011


After Three Years Creation Museum Is Evolving (But Not In That Way)
By Dennis O’Connor

Religion News Service, November 2010
The Huffington Post

Ken Ham, the Australian-born creator of the Creation Museum looks around the throng of about a thousand guests on a hot, August morning and notes that “for a Tuesday, this is not a bad crowd.”

In fact, more than three years after it opened in this remote corner of Kentucky, the 70,000-square-foot “walk through the Bible,” consisting of animatronic displays, video features, theaters and restaurants has evolved into a thriving enterprise.

“We have consistently surpassed our own forecasts for attendance,” said Mark Looy, a co-founder of the museum and spokesman for the center. Last month (August), the Creation Museum counted more than 1.2 million guests since it opened in 2007, he added.

While Ham and Looy expected attendance to be high for the first year because of the curiosity factor — there were about 500,000 guests in the museum’s first year — no one predicted the continuing growth in attendance.

Ham, who was instrumental in the startup of the museum’s sponsoring organization, Answers in Genesis, said that despite the economic recession, families, individuals, church groups and even bus tours continue to pour into the Creation Museum, often spending a couple of days in the region to sample other attractions in the Greater Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky market.

“The recession has not in any way affected us,” Ham said. “Many people who were going to come here were going to make this their destination anyway. Add to that people who decided instead of taking an expensive vacation in Florida, they wanted to either stay in this area or make the trip here. Either way, the museum has really helped the local economy more than people may realize.”

Tom Caradonio, president of the Northern Kentucky Convention and Visitors Bureau, said that one of the Creation Museum’s greatest strengths is the interest and support it has garnered from evangelicals, a large demographic group.

“When Answers in Genesis did their demographic studies for the museum, they obviously knew that they had a group of people who would be highly motivated to visit,” Caradonio said.

Pastor Brad Bigney of nearby Grace Fellowship Church in Florence, Ky., said another reason for the museum’s steady flow of guests is Ham’s frenetic schedule, which puts him on the road up to 250 times a year.

“He’s a great spokesman for the museum, and he plants the seed for individuals and groups to make the trip to Northern Kentucky,” Bigney said.

Four years ago, the museum was beset by feuds over zoning issues and opposition from many corners of the scientific community.

That sideshow has not gone away, Ham said. Anti-creationist bloggers continue to pan the facility, and some critics have taken shots at the museum’s concept and staff. The pinnacle of ridicule came in the form of cable television star Bill Maher, who snuck into Ham’s office one day to do a taping for his movie “Religulous.”

But the biggest doubt over Answers in Genesis’ project was questions about whether organizers could raise the $27 million it would need to launch the project, Caradonio said.

“If you go back to the issue of private funding — there was no government money involved in this project — you will see that about $5 million came from big donors, but by and large the other contributions came from individuals who were giving $25 or $50 from all over the country,” Caradonio said. “With that many people invested in the project, you have built a huge audience that says, `Hey, I’ve put some money into this, and now I want to see the place.’ That became a tremendous incentive for people to visit.”

Looy said that more than half of the museum’s visitors come from outside a 250-mile radius of the region, which has bolstered the bottom line for numerous hotels in and around the Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, located just a few miles from the museum.

“That has been kind of a surprising development, with the hotel packages for museum visitors,” Caradonio said. “It goes back to this whole issue of the kind of people the Creation Museum attracts: wholesome family-oriented people who the hotel folks love to have. And their arrival has helped make up for the loss in business because of the cutbacks (at Delta Airlines hub operations at the airport).”

Ham estimated that the museum has generated $65 million in overall financial impact on the community, helping support more than 2,000 jobs,in the region.

Ham and co-founder Looy said that the museum’s success has allowed them to plan for expansion, including transforming warehouse space into additional room for a theater, and a new hall for visiting exhibits.

Ham noted that museum staffers already are planning for 20,000 guests to visit for the annual live Nativity exhibit, a substantial increase from last year’s attendance, which was about 15,000.

“We are growing,” Ham said. “And we don’t see that stopping any time soon.”

Creation Museum Website
Original Source:The Huffington Post

Tags: , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Why Paleontology is Not “Science”; When It Comes to Giant Pterosaur Flight, Science Believes Very Strongly Both Ways!

Church of Darwin, Crypto, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 11 2010

by Chris Copyright November 2010

Re: Photo:Ancient Pacific Northcoast First Nations Artists came down firmly on the side of giant pterosaur flight? “Haida Raven Rattle” shows man on the back of large flying creature. A dragon at the rear has tongue connected to rider which was a common feature of these pieces. Comparison with Quetalcoatlus, a giant pterosaur.

There are a lot of “disciplines” out there that call themselves “science” or scientific which in fact are neither. Paleontology is one of those disciplines.

Wikipedia tells us that; “science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world”. An older definition of science would call it a body of knowledge that could be logically and/or convincingly explained.

Quite a bit of what passes for science these days would not fit either of those “classical” definitions of science; and this specifically includes paleontology. Early God believing practitioners of the Aristotelian method used its logic and its deductive and inductive reasoning to study and make observations about God’s creation. Modern scientific disciplines have become unscientific because its materialistic practitioners create mythologies and just so stories in order to seek to separate God from His creation.

Modern science has become religion. Modern science is about consensus. Modern science is about materialistic explanations only. Modern science is concerned with politics and right thinking. Modern science goes after non-conformists every bit as much as the Catholic Church went after Galileo.

Michael Crichton, an evolutionist, sadly now passed on once wrote:

“In recent years, much has been said about the post-modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct.”…Aliens Cause Global Warming

Crichton’s specific concern was the kind of “consensus science” that surrounded disciplines like climatology and SETI. Science was now in the business of creating a consensus instead of building and organizing facts around testable hypotheses. Not only that science is now in the business of attacking the credibility and motivations of even their brother scientists whenever they failed to bow down to the paradigm, he believed.

As a current example, science has taken to identifying climate warming non adopters by the pejorative term “climate change deniers” in an attempt to cast people who have doubts about the global warming consensus in the same light as those who deny the Holocaust.

Climatology is not science. This supposed scientific discipline studies supposedly studies the history of our planet covering they believe over 4 billion years. In the past 30 years or so they have been building a consensus built upon carefully selected data for “global warming”. In the process, they attack and silence non-believers.

If this really was a science that built and organized testable explanations or that created a body of knowledge that could be logically or convincingly explained, why was the principal fear of that science as late as 1975; worldwide, global cooling?

Here is a headline from the New York Times, 1975: “Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable…by WALTER SULLIVAN, The New York Times
May 21, 1975”.

A discipline that comes to diametrically opposing conclusions within the span of 35 or 40 years about the weather of a planet supposedly 4.5 billion years old has no predictive or scientific value whatsoever. That’s why climatology is not a science. (see All The Really Smart People Believe in Man-Made Global Warming)

Can we say that Genetics is not science? Clearly there are aspects of genetics that fit the classical definitions of science. However, as I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician and member of the NY Academy of Sciences noted “At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt…….”

He said that because design and intelligence are now obvious and inherent characteristics of the DNA/RNA system. DNA is a language that contains an unimaginable amount of data that is stored in the cells of everything living. DNA is not only a language like English or Russian, it conveys a Message to every living cell that components of the cell understand and execute. Life could not exist without the DNA/RNA system because the instructions for life are conveyed by the system.

Any science that ignores this obvious truth and instead mythologizes a materialistic “explanation” for DNA’s creation and existence cannot be called a science. After all, it is ill-logical and thus anti-scientific to find a message in literally every living cell and not to understand that someone or something intelligent sent that message. The contents of the message conveyed by this langauge in the smallest single bacterium cell is beyond the technology of man.

As an additional blemish on their scientific credentials; “scientists” named a portion of DNA that they did not have the capacity to understand “junk DNA” believing at the time it had no function. As time has passed and it’s become clear that those sections of DNA in fact have very important functions, the term junk science would seem to have been more appropriate.

Cosmology is not a science. The big bang is not a theory; (a hypotheses backed by testing data) it is a materialistic philosophical mythology. How can a scientific explanation fail to explain upwards of 97% of observation? This is in fact the exact opposite of the classical definitions of science. Dark matter and dark energy are two place fillers invented out of darkened imaginations to account for observations in the real world that the theory doesn’t contemplate and can’t explain.

Neither dark matter nor dark energy can be seen or detected. They are invisible, undetectable and mythological in exactly the same way fairies are. This is why cosmology is not science.

Sometimes even “hard science” like physics isn’t science. Not when it has to do the bidding of materialists. In the last several decades it’s become abundantly clear that we live in an anthropic universe. That is, it’s become clear that the universe was created to cradle life and even more disturbing for some; that this planet and solar system have many characteristics seemingly tailored for life.

In desperation, superstring theory; a mythology that there exist an infinite number of universes inhabiting the same space and that we just happen to be one among those infinite universes that supports life has been created out of vivid imagination, materialistic philosophy and chewing gum? Of course, the multi-verses of superstring theory can not be seen, detected. The theory is untestable. This lack of “testability” is precisely why materialists claim that “special creation” is not scientific.

A paleontologist is a “scientist” who studies the history of life on earth, focusing on organisms that lived in the distant past. Paleontologists can wax for hours about the “Cambrian Explosion” and the “Great Dying” mostly without even realizing that they are describing creation and the fall from Genesis.

Paleontology is the kind of science where someone with a PhD can publish an article in a scientific journal suggesting that “maybe” a mutation in a single protein-led to smaller jaw muscles in an ape—which then gave them more room in their skulls to develop a larger “human” brain. This scientific mythology was reported worldwide. One can only surmise that the authors of this “scientific article” and those who accepted it must have had disturbingly large jaw muscles?

Paleontological scientific findings are slavishly reported by the news media and fawned over by materialists because it is the scientific discipline that most directly seeks to support Darwinism and materialism. Evolutionary theory is most often seen through the lenses of this “science”. One with an open mind would be hard pressed to discover one thing that paleontologists are correct about. On the other hand, no one speaks with more apparent authority than the paleontologists. Every body that they study is already dead after all; whose going to contradict?

Remember Ida, the fossil that was supposed to be an early human ancestor that was going to change everything? The subject of the simultaneous release of a book and a documentary and much slavish media reporting in April 2009 did not in the end make most if any of the most prominent Top 10 Scientific Stories of the year lists. How is this possible for a science? (see Fossil Ida; Evolutionists Now Dare Not Speak Its Name)

Well, paleontologists practically invented the phrase; “scientists had previously thought”.

Apologists for non-science science often snootily declare that this is what is great about science; its always willing to admit its mistakes and then to move forward. This is what is admirable about science they say.

Perhaps this is true, but meanwhile; the patient is dead.

In April 2009, a study was published and then breathlessly reported worldwide to the effect that Giant Pterosaurs, a creature supposedly extinct for more that 65 million years, could not fly. “Giant Pterosaurs Couldn’t Fly, Study Suggests”

It’s a mystery how natural selection working through beneficial mutations could confer evolutionary advantage to a creature with giant, useless wings but that is paleontology for you; its not rocket science—its not even science. Shut up and believe.

The study was published by study leader Katsufumi Sato, an associate professor at the University of Tokyo’s Ocean Research Institute.

“Based on the weights and body sizes of modern birds, a new study finds that animals heavier than 90 pounds (41 kilograms) with wingspans greater than 16.7 feet (5.1 meters) wouldn’t be able to flap fast enough to stay aloft.”, the study concluded.

The conclusion casts serious doubt on the flying ability of large pterosaurs such as Quetzalcoatlus, thought to be one of the largest airborne animals of all time.

Dutifully, other scientists began surmising that these giant pterosaurs were swimmers instead. Materialistic science teachers passed this new information on to their students. Young evolution influenced kids began drawing versions of wingless pterosaurs and posting them on evolution websites looking for approval.

Posters on sites like Talk Origins went on and used this new “scientific information” to berate believers. “Why would God create a giant pterosaur that couldn’t fly”? Why would evolution do that they forgot to ask themselves….what would be the evolutionary advantage?

Anyway, another scientist in the paleontological world was working on his own study regarding pterosaur flight. Now, if both of these studies were scientific, and relied on building testable hypotheses or built knowledge bases etc….. One might say, how could they do that? The creatures they study or just bits and pieces of fossilized bones, I would say; “exactly correct” and that again is why paleontology is not science.

Paleontologist Michael Habib offered new findings about giant pterosaurs based on “new models of their wingspans, shape and body mass”. His study was reported on October 18, 2010 in National Geographic News approximately 18 months after the prior study had been reported on, also in National Geographic News.

Now would Habib’s study support Sato’s no fly theory? Would it perhaps suggest that well…..maybe they could fly a little bit given a strong wind, a one thousand foot cliff and Air Jordans?

The title of the new study or at least of the News articles tell the story: “Prehistoric Reptile Could Fly 10,000 Miles”.

“It’s now believed that some of the larger pterosaurs, such as this Tropeognathus mesembrinus, could fly as far as 10,000 miles at a time.

Whether you learned in school to call them pterodactyls or pteranodons, pterosaur fossils have been found all around the world and lived from 65 million to 200 million years ago.

They ranged in size from some with an average wingspan of 6 feet to the giant giraffe-sized Quetzalcoatlus of Texas that could reach up to a 30-foot wingspan.”

Quetzalcoatlus was one of the giant pterosaurs specifically mentioned in the prior article as not being able to get itself off the ground.

Evolution is incredibly flexible and malleable and so are its believers. You see how the article explains that they now believe something diametrically opposed to what they firmly believed only 18 months ago?

Remarkable. That’s why paleontology is more religion; faith and belief than it is science.

Paleontologists have certainly covered the bases here when it comes to giant pterosaur flight. There is one thing that we now know with “scientific certainty”; giant pterosaurs either could not get off the ground and couldn’t so much as even flap their wings—or they were the greatest terrestrial flyers of all time! One scientist claims that his study shows that giant pterosaurs could not get off the ground. The second study indicates that they were the greatest fliers of all time.

Meanwhile, the news media slavishly reports the new information without reference to the old information and certianly without criticism or their own analysis. Materialistic science teachers passed this new information on to their students. Young evolution influenced kids began drawing versions of space-going pterosaurs and posting them on evolution websites looking for approval.

Posters on sites like Talk Origins will now go on and try to use this new “scientific information” to berate believers.

Giant Pterosaurs Couldn’t Fly Study Suggests

Prehistoric Reptile Could Fly 10,000 Miles

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 Comment »

Is the Opposite of There is a God, There Probably Isn’t a God?: Atheist Bus Ads ‘Pathetic:’ Philosopher Says

Amusing?, Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Jul 30 2009

Atheists or Humanists have begun a Canada wide “bus slogan” campaign which touts the idea that there “probably” is no God. The bus slogan campaign first began in Great Britain and has now moved to Canada.

I had no idea that Atheists were so equivocal on this topic. But if you can’t state categorically that there is no God, what is the point? And, what are the ramifications for the person who “relaxes, and enjoys his life”- if in fact THERE IS a God? After all, “probably” isn’t a word likely to make many converts to their side.

Are Atheists “Atheists” not so much because they’re so sure that there is no God, but because they just want to stay home on Sundays and “enjoy life”?

Are they aware that Jesus said

“I came that you may have life–and to have it more abundantly”? John 10:10

Maybe Atheists believe that He probably didn’t say that.

If this campaign is “successful” which seems unlikely, maybe one of the drug companies will be inspired to present a similar “bus slogan” campaign; –”Abilify!, It probably won’t kill you”!

Here is the article I referenced

Tags: , , ,
No Comments »

THE CREDIT CRUNCH FOR MATERIALISM

Church of Darwin, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 12 2009

by RUPERT SHELDRAKE

Biologist; Director of the Perrott-Warrick Project; author of A New Science of Life. In reply to the question posed by “The Edge Foundation: What Will Change Everything? What game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live to see?”

Credit crunches happen because of too much credit and too many bad debts. Credit is literally belief, from the Latin credo, “I believe.” Once confidence ebbs, the loss of trust is self-reinforcing. The game changes.

Something similar is happening with materialism.

Since the nineteenth century, its advocates have promised that science will explain everything in terms of physics and chemistry; science will show that there is no God and no purpose in the universe; it will reveal that God is a delusion inside human minds and hence in human brains; and it will prove that brains are nothing but complex machines.

Materialists are sustained by the faith that science will redeem their promises, turning their beliefs into facts. Meanwhile, they live on credit. The philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper described this faith as “promissory materialism” because it depends on promissory notes for discoveries not yet made. Despite all the achievements of science and technology, it is facing an unprecedented credit crunch.

In 1963, when I was studying biochemistry at Cambridge I was invited to a series of private meetings with Francis Crick and Sydney Brenner in Brenner’s rooms in King’s College, along with a few of my classmates. They had just cracked the genetic code. Both were ardent materialists.

They explained there were two major unsolved problems in biology: development and consciousness. They had not been solved because the people who worked on them were not molecular biologists – nor very bright. Crick and Brenner were going to find the answers within 10 years, or maybe 20. Brenner would take development, and Crick consciousness. They invited us to join them.

Both tried their best. Brenner was awarded the Nobel Prize in 2002 for his work on the development of the nematode worm Caenorhabdytis. Crick corrected the manuscript of his final paper on the brain the day before he died in 2004. At his funeral, his son Michael said that what made him tick was not the desire to be famous, wealthy or popular, but “to knock the final nail into the coffin of vitalism.”

He failed. So did Brenner. The problems of development and consciousness remain unsolved. Many details have been discovered, dozens of genomes have been sequenced, and brain scans are ever more precise. But there is still no proof that life and minds can be explained by physics and chemistry alone.

The fundamental proposition of materialism is that matter is the only reality. Therefore consciousness is nothing but brain activity. However, among researchers in neuroscience and consciousness studies there is no consensus. Leading journals such as Behavioural and Brain Sciences and the Journal of Consciousness Studies publish many articles that reveal deep problems with the materialist doctrine.

For example, Steven Lehar argues that inside our heads there must be a miniaturized virtual-reality full-colour three-dimensional replica of the world. When we look at the sky, the sky is in our heads. Our skulls are beyond the sky. Others, like the psychologist Max Velmans, argue that virtual reality displays are not confined to our brains; they are life-sized, not miniaturized. Our visual perceptions are outside our skulls, just where they seem to be.

The philosopher David Chalmers has called the very existence of subjective experience the “hard problem” of consciousness because it defies explanation in terms of mechanisms. Even if we understand how eyes and brains respond to red light, for example, the quality of redness is still unaccounted for.

In biology and psychology the credit-rating of materialism is falling fast. Can physics inject new capital? Some materialists prefer to call themselves physicalists, to emphasize that their hopes depend on modern physics, not nineteenth-century theories of matter. But physicalism’s credit-rating has been reduced by physics itself, for four reasons.

First, some physicists argue that quantum mechanics cannot be formulated without taking into account the minds of observers; hence minds cannot be reduced to physics, because physics presupposes minds.

Second, the most ambitious unified theories of physical reality, superstring and M theories, with 10 and 11 dimensions respectively, take science into completely new territory. They are a very shaky foundation for materialism, physicalism or any other pre-established belief system. They are pointing somewhere new.

Third, the known kinds of matter and energy constitute only about 4% of the universe. The rest consists of dark matter and dark energy. The nature of 96% of physical reality is literally obscure.

Fourth, the cosmological anthropic principle asserts that if the laws and constants of nature had been slightly different at the moment of the Big Bang, biological life could never have emerged, and hence we would not be here to think about it. So did a divine mind fine-tune the laws and constants in the beginning?

Some cosmologists prefer to believe that our universe is one of a vast, and perhaps infinite, number of parallel universes, all with different laws and constants. We just happen to exist in the one that has the right conditions for us.

In the eyes of skeptics, the multiverse theory is the ultimate violation of Occam’s Razor, the principle that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily. But even so, it does not succeed in getting rid of God. An infinite God could be the God of an infinite number of universes.

Here on Earth we are facing climate change, great economic uncertainty, and cuts in science funding. Confidence in materialism is draining away. Its leaders, like central bankers, keep printing promissory notes, but it has lost its credibility as the central dogma of science. Many scientists no longer want to be 100% invested in it.

Materialism’s credit crunch changes everything. As science is liberated from this nineteenth-century ideology, new perspectives and possibilities will open up, not just for science, but for other areas of our culture that are dominated by materialism. And by giving up the pretence that the ultimate answers are already known, the sciences will be freer – and more fun.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
4 Comments »

The Intelligence That Holds Matter Together

Church of Darwin, Religious, s8int.com, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 23 2008

The Incomparable Christ

For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.

He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together…Col 1:17

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much:

There is no matter as such.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.

    We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter”.

……….Max Planc, who was one of the most important German physicists of the late 19th and early 20th century, winning the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1918; he is considered to be the inventor of quantum theory.

Tags: , , , ,
No Comments »