Posts Tagged ‘God’

Late Survival Theorem, Regarding Chalicotherium
From A Comfy Chair, We I.D. Un-cuddly “Nandi Bear”?
Plus, a Terrace of Lions? Dude You’re not even Tryin’
Enigma’s & Mysteries Due to Skewed View of History

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, Fin De Siecle, s8int.com, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Dec 04 2012



Gen 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kinds, and cattle after their kinds, and every thing that creeps upon the earth after its kind:
and God saw that it was good.”

   
Can a Leopard Change Its Paradigm?

As a Christian my interests are not strictly limited to debates about the meaning of scripture, issues concerning salvation or debates concerning the existence of God. Those are all important to be sure but throughout history science has been driven by human curiosity about and discoveries concerning the world and the universe that God has made.

One of the interests I have is in something I like to call crypto-zoo-archaeology. Clues to the true history of our planet can be discovered by examining the art and artifacts of past civilizations. The truth is; studying and writing about what I and many others have found in these artifacts is another way of addressing; the meaning of scripture, issues concerning salvation and debates concerning the existence of God.


In this pursuit I have found that those who accept the literal creation account of Genesis have an incredible advantage in this arena. One can look at the artifacts of ancient history through at least two filters; 1)that all living creatures are descended from a single living cell and have evolved through some process (essentially linear and sequential) into the higher order living species that we see today, or 2)the Genesis account of creation which would mean that all living creatures including man have all lived together simultaneously through all history in essentially their current forms.

No matter which filter one uses much of ancient history will still be a puzzle. But using the wrong filter certainly leads to a copious number of; inconsistencies, anomalies, contradictions, unknowns, mysteries and a need to fill in missing information with speculations and assertions which are not data or evidence.

Personally, I have tested the Genesis account and found that what I see and what I expect to find in the historical and archaeological record better fit that filter.

Once one of the two above named paradigms are accepted however it is very difficult to see or even to consider evidence that conflicts with the paradigm. This is true whether you believe in evolution or in Creation ex Nihilo by God. This relative inability to see or except or even to evaluate evidence that might appear to conflict with your adopted paradigm afflicts even those among who are quite certain that we are actually open-minded and objective.

This doesn’t negate the fact that one of the referenced paradigms-is actually true-and that the selection of one or the other filter for your own life doesn’t have consequences.

When news outlets announced that James Cameron and others had allegedly found “the Jesus Tomb” it did not cause any consternation among us Christians who paid zero attention to the story. We waited for secular archaeologists to refute it-which they have. When news conferences, books and television series were coordinated around the announcement of an alleged human ancestor—which was going to change everything- exploded on the scene-“Ida”, I personally did not do a spit-take.

By the end of that year “Ida” was not even on lists for the top ten science stories of that year. “She/it had been debunked. I have never seen “evidence for evolution”. I’ve never seen a transitional fossil.

I accept that evolutionists have not seen evidence for the theory of creation either. However, shouldn’t just a single ancient artifact indicating that humans and dinosaurs lived together falsify the notion that we missed each other by 65 million years? In the 1920’s the World’s foremost archaeologist discovered human and dinosaur bones together in Mongolia and he found that they had fashioned jewelry by boring the shells and making ornaments of dinosaur eggs. (See our article: Dinosaur and Human Interactions in Our Times; the New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Sun Times ect)

Do I need to tell you that you need to use “fresh” un-fossilized dinosaur eggs for this purpose? Archaeologist, Roy Chapman Andrews, went on to become the director of the American Museum of Natural History-so how come so many evolutionists ask where there has ever been such evidence (of co-existence) ever in the world?

Let’s test my paradigm theory. Note the middle, right photograph compilation; the one with the three views of an archaeological object above. Once you read the museum’s description of the object, or perhaps prior thereto your filter goes into action.

“Colima Horned Toad. Protoclassic, ca. 100 B.C. to A.D. 250. Height: 5.3 in. (13.5 cm.); Length: 10.5 in. (26.7 cm.). Price: $2,250

There are four rows of spiked protrusions in high relief along the length of the body, and one row across the head, thirty in all. Coffee bean eyes, recessed nostrils, open mouth, spout as tail, and short legs create a reptile that seems pleased with his surroundings. Provenance: From a Riverside County, California Collection.”

Our article can be found Here.

Now, if you are a creationist, willing to believe that dinosaurs and man co-existed, you may see that the photo comparison with an armored dinosaur is very apt. If however, you are using the evolution filter it will be a toad. There is no way that it could be a dinosaur because you believe that they missed each other by 65 million years.

This is then, for you a toad, a fake or etc.. Paradigm preserved. Forehead unfurrowed. In the same way, of course, I have trouble accepting this as a toad because I see the dinosaur explanation as a better fit-however, I do believe that the toad explanation is a possibility.


These filters exist and work to protect us from having to flip flop our beliefs and our view on the world every five or six minutes.

Just above, left is another very interesting ancient artifact. This artifact is described by the curator as a “lion”. I picked this one out because I want to get into the heart of this post and talk about another group of famous lions. Most people would be perfectly willing to see this depiction as a “lion”.

“Early Islamic glass lion (zoomorphic balsamarium). 7th-9th century AD”.

Certainly no one would object to “mythological”, or “unknown animal” or even; “stylized lion figure”. One must make a decision and call it something. However, if you accept the evolutionary filter it is possible that a whole group of potential candidates can’t even be considered. What if the true depiction here is of some type of crested dinosaur? In the photo we’ve compared it to Olorotitan, a European, crested hadrosaur (top, right of photo) and to Amargasaurus, a crested sauropod. Fossils of the specific species have been found in Argentina.

My point is that creationists can consider the entire creation when examining an artifact but those using the other filter cannot—and maintain their paradigm-al purity. They must describe every artifact in terms of the ruling evolutionary paradigm or face the penalties that the scientific/academic/media culture will mete out. Can you imagine someone from Academia describing this as either a badly composed lion or possibly a sauropod like Amargasaurus?

So now let’s talk about some other depictions labeled “lions” by the archaeological establishment.

The Terrace of Lions at Delos


“The island of Delos, recognized as the birthplace of the god Apollo, has been a sacred area used for various reasons throughout history. Today it is one of the most important archaeological sites in Greece and is covered in excavations, one of which is the famous Terrace of the Lions. This terrace was erected and dedicated to Apollo by the people of Naxos just before 600 BCE.

The terrace consisted of a row of nine to twelve marble carved lions that faced eastward towards the Sacred Lake of Delos along the Sacred Way from Skardana Bay to the temples. The lions, with their mouths open as if roaring or snarling, were both meant to guard the sanctuaries and to inspire a feeling of divine fear among the worshippers. The way in which they were positioned is similar to the way sphinxes were set up along avenues in ancient Egypt.

Today, only five of the original lions remain with remnants of three others and the headless body of another has been transported and put over the main gate of a Venetian arsenal.” Biers, William R. The Archaeology of Greece. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996. Whitley, James. The Archaeology of Ancient Greece. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

“The island of Delos near Mykonos, near the centre of the Cyclades archipelago, is one of the most important mythological, historical and archaeological sites in Greece. The excavations in the island are among the most extensive in the Mediterranean; ongoing work takes place under the direction of the French School at Athens and many of the artifacts found are on display at the Archaeological Museum of Delos and the National Archaeological Museum of Athens.”

Photo:Naxian Lions held at the Museum at Delos are less damaged.


Question? Are these in fact, lions? If they are lions, they are surely “stylized lions” because their proportions are incorrect. Their front legs are too long. They have three fingers paws. Their bodies are too long. This from a culture that provides us many examples of museum level, realistic depictions of lions and other animals. If these are lions built to “guard” the sanctuaries why aren’t they more self-evidently and accurately sculpted; lions?

Could they depict some other animal? Are they mythological?

Prior to trying to answer that, we switch to a more recent crypto-zoological mystery; the Nandi Bear of Kenya for reasons which I hope to make clear.

The Nandi Bear and Chalicotherium


“The Nandi Bear, also known as Ngoloko, is a cryptid, or unconfirmed animal, reported to live in Africa. It takes its name from the Nandi people who live in western Kenya, near where the Nandi Bear is reported as living.

Frank W. Lane wrote, “What the Abominable Snowman is to Asia, or the great Sea Serpent is to the oceans, the Nandi Bear is to Africa. It is one of the most notorious of those legendary beasts which have, so far, eluded capture and the collector’s rifle.

…Descriptions of the Nandi Bear are of a ferocious, powerfully built carnivore with high front shoulders (over four feet tall) and a sloping back; somewhat similar to a hyena. Some have speculated that Nandi Bears are in fact a misidentified hyena or a surviving Ice Age giant hyena: Karl Shuker states that a surviving short-faced hyena Pachycrocuta brevirostris,extinct ca. 500,000 years before present, would “explain these cases very satisfactorily.”

Other than the Atlas Bear (extinct by the 1800s), no bears are known to be native to Africa, besides those of the prehistoric genera Agriotherium and Indarctos, which died out 4.4 million years ago. Louis Leakey suggested that Nandi Bear descriptions matched that of the extinct Chalicotherium, though chalicotheres were herbivores.

The Nandi people call it Kerit. Local legend holds that it only eats the brain of its victims. Nandi Bears were regularly reported in Kenya throughout the 19th century and early 20th century. Bernard Heuvelmans’s On the Track of Unknown Animals and Karl Shuker’s In Search of Prehistoric Survivors provide the most extensive chronicles of Nandi bear sightings in print.”


A syndicated news article appearing Mansfield News of January 6, 1924 reported that a very large fresh, fragment of unfossilized claw of chalicotherium had been discovered at Bunyoro, Uganda ( Central Africa) and that the thought to be extinct chalicotherium might be very much still alive.

In fact, Zoologists were making a connection between the stories the Nandi peoples had been telling of a fearsome, man killing, brain eating deadly night creature they called “Gereit” might exist and was in fact, chalicotherium. The drawing above right, is from that 1924 article and is a depiction of chalicotherium.

“Chalicotherium, genus of extinct perissodactyls, the order including the horse and rhinoceros. Fossil remains of the genus are common in deposits of Asia, Europe, and Africa from the Miocene Epoch (23 to 5.3 million years ago). The genus persisted into the following Pliocene Epoch, and remains of a related genus, Moropus, are found in North America.


Chalicotherium and its relatives, collectively known as the chalicotheres, ( we’re not locking down on the genus) were very unusual in appearance and structure. In overall appearance the body and slim skull were horse like. The front limbs were longer than the hind limbs, and the back sloped downward. The teeth were distinctive in structure and unhorse like. The feet were quite distinctive.

There were no hooves; instead, each of the three toes on each foot terminated in a strongly developed claw. It is probable that the development of claws was related to the feeding habits of the animal. Chalicotherium may have browsed on branches of trees, pulling them down with the front claws; the claws may also have been employed to dig up roots and tubers.”…Encyclopedia Britannica

The Crux: is the Nandi Bear a Chalicotherium? And What of the Lions of the Terrace at Delos?

Photo: Left, drawing of the Nandi bear from eyewitness accounts and Right, a frontal view of one of the Terrace of Lions, “lions”.

The Chalicotherium is supposed to have gone extinct from 5-7 million years ago. The chalicotherium has been forth as a possible ID for the Nandi bear primarily because the chalicotherium is also known for having much longer front legs than back legs and to have claws as some eyewitness accounts of the Nandi bear have described it.

The Nandi bear is also a cryptid whose description fits no known, living animal so the late survival of some animal thought to have been prehistoric are put forward as potential suspects. Hyenadon is another animal thought to have been prehistoric that has also been put forth as a potential suspect for the same reasons; high front shoulders, long front legs and a sloping back.

The chalicotherium ID is interesting in that this animal also has very unusual feet and claws which set him apart.

Photo:Comparison of admittedly carefully selected chalicotherium depiction inserted into old photo of Naxian (Terrace of Lions) Lion at Delos.


I came across the Terrace of Lions of Delos quite by accident while investigationg some other matter and was struck by how un-lion-like the lions were. They are magnificent animals to be sure but not like any lions I’ve ever seen. Could they be depictions of real creatures-who were not lions?

I did a quick Google search for prehistoric animals with long front legs and immediately was taken to articles about chalicotherium. Articles about chalicotherium also eventually led to articles concerning modern day speculation by cryptozoologists that chalicotherium was a potential match for the Nandi bear, a cryptid that I was unaware of.

The photo at the top of this section shows a very common drawing of the Nandi bear (of unknown source) along with a frontal photo of one of the lions of the Terrace of Lions. This is interesting because as far as I know no one has ever speculated that the “lions” of the Terrace of Lions has anything to do with either the Nandi bear or with chalicotherium. So is this visual similarity (if your filters aren’t preventing you from seeing it or mine forcing me to) just a coincidence?

Chalicotheres are usually depicted as thick, slow and sloth-like and not as fast, relatively slim and dangerous as the lions of Delos seem to appear.

Photo:Comparison of the skeleton of chalicotherium with a Naxian “lion” from the Delos Museum. Note that the face of the Naxian lion shown here has been worn down by weathering and age..


We know from articles about dinosaur depictions that scientists and artists are only guessing when they depict dinosaurs how a dinosaur looks just from their fossils alone.

We also remember that last year a scientific journal reported that scientists now believe that due to an error in a formula they have been using that they have overestimated the size of some dinosaurs by as much as 33% to 50%. The size of their bones are known it was the amount of meat the artists were throwing on the bone that is in question. This suggests that certain dinosaurs were depicted as much bulkier animals than they actually were. Could this be true of chalicotherium?

When artists or illustrators depict known animals the variety of the depictions, the form, the poses can be infinite because the real creature can appear in infinite poses and can be seen from infinite angles.

This not the case with unknown creatures. Inevitably, once a depiction of an animal is made (a guess) all other depictions take the shape of the reference depiction (or first few) and there becomes a limited view of the shape of the creature and even the poses that the animal is shown in. This group think about the look of an unknown creature appears to be inevitable. A radical departure from the consensus view of the creature won’t even be recognized as a depiction of said creature. Ironically an ancient depiction by an eyewitness to the living creature might be rejected because it does not look like the modern, consensus depiction.

Chalicotherium has three toes on each foot ending in claws. Still, the front and back feet are completely different from each other which may provide us some ID possibilities. Are there Nandi bear descriptions of three-toed feet? (By the way lions have five toes in front and four on their back feet).

Here is an antique, eyewitness account of an encounter with the Nandi bear:

“…the whole tent rocked; the pole to which Mbwambi was tied flew out and let down the ridge-pole, enveloping me in flapping canvas. At the same moment the most awful howl I have ever heard split the night. The sheer demoniac horror of it froze me still…I heard my pi-dog yelp just once. There was a crashing of branches in the bush, and then thud, thud, thud, of some huge beast making off. But that howl! I have heard half a dozen lions roaring in a stampede-chorus not twenty yards away; I have heard a maddened cow-elephant trumpeting; I have heard a trapped leopard make the silent night miles a rocking agony with screaming, snarling roars. But never have I heard, nor do I wish to hear again, such a howl as that of the chimiset. A trail of red spots on the sand showed where my pi-dog had gone. Beside that trail were huge footprints, four times as big as a man’s, showing the imprint of three huge clawed toes, with trefoil marks like a lion’s pad where the sole of the foot pressed down. But no lion ever boasted such a paw as that of the monster which had made that terrifying spoor.” Karl Shuker’s Blog

The Nandi bear has been described as having five or six toes in various accounts over the last century as well. I believe that Dale Drinnon who has written extensively on the Nandi bear postulates that the six toed account is assumed to have been where the back feet stepped into an existing three-toed front track.

Various descriptions noted that the animal liked to sit back on its haunches, described it as bear-like (hence the name) having large feet and as being brown in color.

Photo: The interesting foot of the Naxian lion from the Delos Museum compared with the interesting rear foot of the chalicotherium.


Regarding the lions of Delos again; it can be clearly seen from the less damaged statues inside the museum that the lions have three toes on the front feet and very long rear feet, also with three long claws. This superficially at least matches the front feet and rear feet of chalicotherium.

We’ve shown here additional photographs comparing the feet of chalicotherium with those on the Delos lions-both front and rear as well as a number of photographs comparing the physiology, including the long front legs and sloping back.

Photo:A comparison of the three clawed front foot of chalicotherium with the front feet of the Delos, Naxian Lion.


I’ve gone back to look at the actual chalicotherium skeleton to see if a depiction of the living creature as long, slim bodied with a sloping back would also have been a realistic way to depict the creature notwithstanding all the thousands of versions of fat chalicos.

I’ve concluded that the skeleton does lend itself to the Delos, Terrace of Lions, chalicotherium which has closely matching front and back feet, the long front legs and the sloping back of the fossil chalicotherium. (See my admittedly unscientific juxtapostion photo above left.) Even the long hair (mane) of the statues fails to accurately depict the mane of a lion and does remind me of the long hair on certain sloths.

It appears that there is reason to connect the chalicotherium; a creature that supposedly became extinct 5-7 million years ago to the Naxian Lions at Delos. There appears to be some evidence that there is a connection between the Nandi bear of Kenya and Central Africa and the chalicotherium. The elongated bodies of the Naxian lions could be a match for the elongated bodies, and unusual feet of the chalicotherium which could aide in an affirmative identification and prove that chalicotherium was a “late survivor” and could even still be alive.

One More Mystery; Are They Telling the Truth About this Great Monument-or are They Still Lion? Filters On?


Sigiriya (Lion’s rock) Sri Lnkan Mega Site

“In 1831 Major Jonathan Forbes of the 78th Highlanders of the British army, while returning on horseback from a trip to Pollonnuruwa, came across the “bush covered summit of Sigiriya”. Sigiriya came to the attention of antiquarians and, later, archaeologists. Archaeological work at Sigiriya began on a small scale in the 1890s. H.C.P. Bell was the first archaeologist to conduct extensive research on Sigiriya. The Cultural Triangle Project, launched by the Government of Sri Lanka, focused its attention on Sigiriya in 1982. Archaeological work began on the entire city for the first time under this project. There was a sculpted lion’s head above the legs and paws flanking the entrance, but the head broke down many years ago”….Wikipedia
Sigiriya consists of an ancient castle built by King Kasiappan during the 5th century. The Sigiriya site has the remains of an upper palace sited on the flat top of the rock, a mid-level terrace that includes the Lion Gate and the mirror wall with its frescoes, the lower palace that clings to the slopes below the rock, and the moats, walls, and gardens that extend for some hundreds of metres out from the base of the rock.

The site is both a palace and a fortress. Despite its age, the splendor of the palace still furnishes a stunning insight into the ingenuity and creativity of its builders. The upper palace on the top of the rock includes cisterns cut into the rock that still retain water. The moats and walls that surround the lower palace are still exquisitely beautiful.

During Kassapa’s reign in the 5th century AD, a massive, 60-foot lion was chiseled out of the rock. The steps which continued up to the royal palace started at the lion’s feet, wrapped around his body and eventually entered his mouth. Today, all that remain are the paws, but they give a good idea of the statue’s scale. It’s hard to appreciate how impressive it must have been 1500 years ago. It would be impressive now.

The final flight of stairs, hugging tightly to the stone wall, is not for those who suffer from vertigo…Great Photos as the site of srilanka for 91days.com

Here is the mystery; the lion’s head has fallen down and that years ago. One of the most famous parts of the entire sight is the gigantic “lion’s Paws that begin the assent to the next level. But the paws rendered in great detail, are of a creature with three claws on each foot. Lions have five total claws on each front foot although one claw is a “thumb” that usually does not show in a foot print.


So, did someone take the time and input the engineering to construct a megalithic structure featuring a lion only to get the detail concerning the number of claws wrong? I’m even more amazed that no one seems to be questioning whether or not these are meant to be lion’s paws. People seem content just to accept the ID and to move on to the other incredible features of the site.

At least cryptozoologists ought to be asking about the three-clawed lion–if not biologists.

Seriously, is it even reasonable to suppose that the people who built this great monument intended it to represent a three toed lion? Even beyond the number of claws, go google lion claws, view the images and you will note that notwithstanding the actual number of claws–they are nothing like the claws of a lion. What creature, perhaps lion-like in demeanor could be confused with a depiction of a lion- and have three sharp claws on its front feet?

Well, certain dinosaurs might fit the bill–and of course there is the Naxian lion come chalicotherium….

–Comments to: s8intcom@comcast.net

Update: The Biggest Out of Place Artifacts Ever? Immense, Stupendous Petrified Trees of the Black Hills, South Dakota

Giants in Those Days, s8int.com, Science, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 23 2012



Photo: Portion of gigantic petrified tree laying horizontally on the ground. Here we could be looking at a stump or a branch with a circumference of 130 to 150 feet. Black Hills, South Dakota. Photo Copyright Joseph C. Bennett. All Rights reserved.

Gen 7:17 “The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits. Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.”

……..”this isn’t “rocket science”. Any self respecting boy scout can identify petrified wood.” www.beholdgiants.com

We first met Joseph C. Bennett almost three years ago, online when he forwarded some incredible photographs and made some incredible comments to go along with the photos. Joseph Bennett was the discoverer of a phenomenon that if true would require a radical re-examination and realization by science of the true history of this planet.

Photo: Right. Colossal trees neccessarily must have colossal seeds/pits, right? Mr. Bennett proposes that this is such a photo of a gigantic, petrified seed or pit at the Black Hills site. Photo by and Copyright Joseph C. Bennett. All rights reserved. Do not duplicate.

This post isn’t so much as an update as a restating of the original discovery and an opportunity to restore links to photographs.

Also, Joseph has made a video providing significant details of the discovery in terms of his explanation for the gigantic artifacts that he is diplaying pictorially. Joseph’s original site is no longer up, but if you are on facebook you can see approximately 140 pictures that he has located there.


Unfortunately, the detailed descriptions and explanations that were on the main site are no longer there.

Bennett is working on enhancing the material and promises to come back on line with a new site and with the new material that he has gathered over the years.

Our original short post on this topic is still one of the most popular posts on the site. In short, the discovery is this:



“An entire island, 50 x 100 miles, completely petrified. Covered with the petrified remains of a forest of super giants. Trees of incredible/impossible size, destroyed by a cataclysm that collapsed the island itself into the surrounding sea.

Having remained secret for all time. Now, this place has decided to make itself known. Here is just the beginning of an astounding photographic documentation of this petrified island. A little glimpse of an entirely unknown condition upon the Earth. Giants indeed.” Joseph C. Bennett www.beholdgiants.com

Photo:The bark on this stump or branch can be seen on the upper right of this photo. Black Hills, South Dakota. Photo Copyright Joseph C. Bennett. All Rights reserved



Bennett believes that he has discovered a gigantic, petrified forest of mind blowing dimensions in the Black Hills of South Dakota. If these artifacts are what they appear to be to the discerning an open minded eye; the remnants of forest of gigantic trees; where did they come from? In the history of the planet, at what time would an island of giant trees like this have existed?

Science has its own ideas about the many petrified forests (smaller trees) that have been discovered around the world;

“A petrified forest is a forest made out of fossil or petrified wood. In other words, a petrified forest is a forest made out of stone trees. Petrification is a natural process that occurs when all organic material in a tree dies and is replaced by a combination of quartz, copper, iron, and other minerals. Once the process has been finalized, petrified wood is no longer considered wood, and it becomes classified as a stone. In fact, petrified wood is Washington’s official stone. All petrified forests are national monuments and are carefully protected.

A petrified forest becomes such over the course of million of years. Some of the world’s largest petrified forests are an estimated 100 million years old” Wisegeek.

The Bible of course provides another version of history; that the whole earth was at one time covered in water above the mountains in a global flood less than 10,000 years ago. In 2011, what is being called the world’s largest tree was discovered in Redwood National Park in California. The tree named Hyperion reaches a height of 379 feet.

Scientists recently concluded that the maximum height of a tree is 425 feet under current gravimetric conditions. So how does one account for trees in the past of such huge size as to be impossible to imagine–up to 1/2 mile in circumference (distance walking around it)–and larger? For instance, a 900 foot petrified tree found in Texas in 1927 had “upright trunks are so large that they appear from a distance to be great symmetrical columns of natural rock.” A 900 foot tree should not have been possible under the current gravity of the earth–but Bennett claims evidence of trees much larger even than this. Perhaps the trees were as large as this in the Garden of Eden?


….”When you get to the top of one particular ridge, overlooking a long meadow to the south and a larger valley to the southeast, you see a vast landscape, littered everywhere with large petrified tree sections similar to the ones you have seen so far. Then when you look out a little further, you notice right away that things get a lot bigger and you realize that everything else you have seen is most certainly smaller giant trees and branches of much larger giant trees.

Wow. Time to burn some brain calories. First, is this for real?”..www.beholdgiants.com
Photo above: In the foreground; Mount Rushmore. In the background; gigantic broken off tree stumps?

Joseph Bennett made these discoveries while hiking in the Black Hills of South Dakota himself. As he says, these artifacts aren’t going to go away. Anyone with the time, a little knowledge and the inclination can verify these discoveries-and their implications themselves.


We don’t have the ability to understand the satellite maps in the same way that Mr.Bennett sees them. We are on board with the notion that he has a number of photographs proving that there are gigantic, petrified trees there at the site (the smaller trees). We think that he has more work to do to prove that the really super big trees which appear to be small mountains are really broken off tree stumps. He promises to come forward in the future with some additional, mind blowing artifacts.

The facebook site of a number of these photographs is:Black Hills Petrified Giants

Video Link to BeholdGiants.com

All photos Copyright Joseph C. Bennett
Hey Chris,
Spot the giant log?

Joseph C. Bennett


  

Following is an additional, large scale view of the location with several huge stumps described.

Click the photo to see a higher resolution version.


Hey Loren Coleman, World Famous Cryptozoologist; Can You Hear Me Now!?

Church of Darwin, Crypto, s8int.com, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Oct 14 2012


Photo: Material for a later post; African, out of place and time art depicts pterosaurs and ceratopsians? Maybe eyewitnesses are still seeing some of these creatures over America and around the world. Note the keeled sternums on the pterosaurs.
 &nbsp

By Chris Parker

As usual it seems, I’m working on story about the historical proofs in ancient art that pterosaurs ruled ancient skies-and still do. I was looking for that Jonathan Whitcomb quote about his estimate of the number of modern eyewitness accounts of pterosaur sightings in the U.S. (1,400). Jonathan Whitcomb is the author of “Live Pterosaurs in America” and several other books on the subject of living pterosaurs.

Apparently Mr. Whitcomb’s estimate and the fact that Mr. Whitcomb is a creationist raised Loren Coleman’s ire. In a blog post entitled “Creationist Imagines Pterosaurs Soaring Over America”. Mr. Coleman takes aim at the mere notion that living pterosaurs still exist. He ties the whole thing to evolution and makes the claim that in calling himself a “cryptozoologist” Mr. Whitcomb is hiding the fact that he is actually a creationist.

Apparently the very tony science of cryptozoology is careful about its membership. But hasn’t Mr. Coleman ever considered why he always sits alone at those scientific conferences?

I confess that I’m always a bit nonplussed that the main function of sites like CryptoMundo is apparently to debunk cryptozoological sightings? Probably most of these types of things are ripe for debunking but you’d think the one place that alleged pterosaur sightings would get a hearing is on sites like Cryptomundo.com.

Has Mr. Coleman never investigated such accounts himself or has he as the world’s foremost cryptozoologist decided not investigate such silly claims while going out on investigations of bigfoot and the giant, bushy tailed, giant monkeys he researched in Albany, Kentucky in 1973?

Mr. Coleman wrote:

“According to Whitcomb, a substantial number are not from hoaxes, insanity, or misidentifications; they are most likely living pterosaurs,” says their press release.

Wherein lies the insanity here?

Cryptozoology used in the support of extreme, unsupportable theories of creationism is unscientific and, perhaps, worse.”

Ah, it’s the creationist part that bothers Mr. Coleman–surely it’s not the extraordinary claims?

My Own Special Encounter with Mr. Coleman, World Famous Cryptozoologist

This entire post is actually not about pterosaurs at all but about my Sherlock Holmes like identification of Monckton’s Gazeka.


Back in 2009 I wrote a “brilliant” post about the s8int.com identification of Monckton’s Gazeka, a problem/musytery that had mystified/intrigued zoologists, paleontologist and cryptozoologists since 1910 (Even Christian cryptozoologists).

See back in 1910 the Stephens Point, Wisconsin Gazette published a syndicated story about a giant, prehistoric appearing creature in the “wilds of New Guinea”.

According to the article, a prehistoric monster much larger than an elephant had been discovered and encountered not by common folks like me and you, but by scientists.

In addition, to the giant monster,the scientists had come across a “marvelous race of pigmies” who averaged just over four feet in height.

According to the article; the expedition was sent out by a committee appointed by the British Ornithologist’s union to explore the great Snow mountains in Dutch New Guinea, and consists of several famous scientists, headed by Walter Goodfellow, the naturalist.”

“According to the official reports, the Gazeka is of gigantic size and fearsome aspect. It is black and white striped, has the nose of a tapir and “a face like the devil.”

Among the English inhabitants of the island, the animal is known as Monckton’s Gazeka, in honor of Mr. C. A. W. Monckton, a former explorer In New Guinea, who first reported its presence in the mountains.

Mr. Monckton, during his ascent of Mount Albert Edward, in the west of British New Guinea, discovered the huge footprints and other indications of the very recent presence of some tremendous monster that had evidently been prowling on the grassy plains surrounding the lakes on the summit at an elevation of about 12,500 feet.

He followed the trail all day, and came upon the monster at dusk, just as it was devastating a settlement of the pigmies.

The little natives were screaming and running for their lives, although they turned every now and again to aim their poisoned arrows at the brute.

Monckton let fire as soon as he was able to get in a proper position, and the huge Gazeka at once turned upon him. As it reared upon its hind legs and pawed the air it looked to the hunter as big as a house, standing fully 25 feet high.

Two of Monckton’s bullets seemed to take effect, as a stream of blood flowed freely from the animal’s shoulder, but before Monckton was able to reload the animal turned and fled. By that time it was too dark to follow him, and Monckton never had another opportunity to renew his pursuit.”

Since 1910 many have speculated as to the identity of the creature that is now known as Monckton’s Gazeka. My post was written back in 2009 because the 1910 Newspaper article had published a photo showing the giant footprint of Monckton’s Gazeka, along with a photo of one of the pygmies in order to provide some idea of the size of the “Gazeka” print. No doubt, the scientists who took the picture hoped that some time in the future the huge footprint could be identified.


In 2009, we came across a picture of a footprint of diprotodon, published in 2009, some 99 years after the Stevens Point Gazette article. That picture was printed in among other places the “Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology”, September 2009 titled:

Diprotodontid Footprints from the Pliocene of Central Australia”, Page 867

The footprint picture from 2009 matched the footprint picture of Monckton’s Gazeka-then a mystery creature printed in a newspaper 99 years ago.

Someone was suitably impressed and forwarded a link to my article to Cryptomundo.

It was then that I heard from Mr. Coleman, world’s foremost cryptozoologist and keeper of the faith-I thought perhaps to congratulate me cryptozoologist to crypto-zoo-archaeologist.

He wrote:

I may move this to a new posting, but I don’t understand how this is anything more than a circular argument? Doesn’t this merely increase the level of speculation but ends up back where this material lead before, to theorized dino alive in PNG?

I don’t see how anything is “positively identified.” Are you one of the authors of this examination?

Am I missing something here?

Thank you

Loren Coleman

Well, yes Loren, you are “missing something”. It’s because I’m a Christian/creationist isn’t it? This is the kind of thing cryptozoologists are supposed to get excited about. If it helps Gazeka has a big foot?

See Loren, one picture is from 1910. It is a picture of a foot print of a mystery creature then dubbed “Monckton’s Gazeka”. They didn’t know what the creature actually was (but some scientists speculated that it was Diprototon) but scientists at that time collected photographs for future study and identification. (The caption under the photo of the Pygmy and print is actually: Enormous foot of Gazeka “reconstructed” from recent tracks.)

Then, 99 years later, scientists printed an apparently unrelated photo of diprotodon in a Journal. Now, I believe that I have found a striking similarity between the 1910 mystery footprint -photo/reconstruction of the recent tracks- and the 2009 Journal of Vetebrate Paleontology photo of diprotodon’s pes–the back footprint. (In the photo above right, the footprint labeled “C” is from the Journal in 2009–the photos of the Pygmy and the footprint on the right of the picture are from the 1910 newspaper article).

So, Mr. Coleman do you hear me now? Do you see how that’s not circular? Circular would be dating rocks by the fossils embedded and then dating the fossils by the type of rock or saying that survival of the fittest is where the fittest creatures survive.

Encode Project Proves that Materialists Had Gotten Ignorance Down to a Science; Junk DNA is No More!

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Oct 05 2012


By Chris Parker Copyright 2012

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) launched a public research consortium named ENCODE, the Encyclopedia Of DNA Elements, in September 2003, to carry out a project to identify all functional elements in the human genome sequence. Recently they announced some science shaking results.

Back Story

“Ignorance is bliss” the saying goes and many who promote or adhere to today’s scientific paradigms are in the position to best report whether or not this saying is true. I’m not using the word “ignorance” in a pejorative sense but rather in the sense of Webster’s “a state of being uninformed (lack of knowledge).

Finding oneself in the state of being uninformed is common to most of us in some aspects of our lives but deciding to build up an area of science or to make scientific assertions built upon the foundation of one’s own ignorance is a mistake that’s likely to be made manifest once that ignorance is dispelled with a bit of the light of actual knowledge.

As an example, for years scientists did not know what the function was for a number of organs or structures in the human body. They could have said “we do not know what the function of this particular organ or part in the body is”. What they did instead was to build on the evolution myth by tying their ignorance about the human body into “scientific knowledge” claiming that these “vestigial organs or structures” were leftovers from the evolutionary past-which had lost their functions. Eventually, other scientists were able to discover important functions for each of these “vestigial” organs and today, arguably, none exist.

Materialists and strict evolutionists believe that there is only matter and energy in the universe and that somehow that matter and energy was able to organize itself into planets, comets, stars and life. They don’t believe in spirit, such as the souls of man or in God who is Spirit because such can’t be scientifically quantified. There is however another sphere that exists apart from matter and energy that even the materialists have to admit is real. This sphere is called information.

Information exists and in fact is the basis of life itself. Information is non-material and exists apart from any method or material used to convey it. Information exists in copious amounts in the cells of everything living. This information, DNA, is a language which the living cell can read, understand and “obey”. This information provides the instructions for every facet of life.

“The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.”..NIH

Information and language come from a mind; it comes from intelligence. DNA is such a language.

The “technology” conveyed through the language DNA is infinitely above any technology of mankind. The fact that this information could have only come from a superior intelligence should be obvious; whoever placed the language in the cells of everything living first had to have stupendous and incredible knowledge in order to implant it into all life.

If materialists and evolutionists gave themselves a moment to reflect they would realize that DNA is proof that God exists and so they refuse to reflect-and instead apparently spend their time trying to create counter arguments to the obvious.

Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft said :

“DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”
Bill Gates, The Road Ahead .

All of Gates far less complicated software codes had creators.

Anyone who was honestly considering whether or not God exists had no alternative but to consider DNA absolute proof of a Creator. The smallest cell of bacteria living requires to much information to have been formed by chance and that information is on a level well above anything man has concieved or built.

As I.L. Cohen, Mathematician and researcher said:

“At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt”……. I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician; Member NY Academy of Sciences; Officer of the Archaeological Inst. of America; “Darwin Was Wrong – A Study in Probabilities”; New Research Publications, 1984, p. 4

There is a small portion of the human genome that codes for proteins—around 2%. This area has been a central focus on gene studies. The function of the larger portion of the genome that does not code for protein has been a mystery. Materialists seized upon areas of the genome that were not as well understood and declared these areas “junk dna”. Being ignorant of the function of these areas, they argued that they were evolutionary junk, left over from eons of evolutionary activity.

Francis Collins, at one time the Director of the Human Genome Project said the following regarding materialist scientists using their own scientific ignorance as a basis for building on the current paradigm in science:

“There were long stretches of DNA in between genes that didn’t seem to be doing very much; some even referred to these as “junk DNA,” though a certain amount of hubris was required for anyone to call any part of the genome “junk,” given our level of ignorance.”
Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief

Naturally, Materialists Ignored Collins’ Hubris Warnings and Those of Creationists

The term “Junk DNA” coined by Susumu Ohnoover 40 years ago is quite obviously a pejorative term intended to suggest lack of design and thus; lack of a Designer-God. A typical evolutionist challenge to creationists have typically gone something like this:

“Anti-evolutionists: can you explain why God would make “junk” DNA?

A good portion of our genetic code has no apparent purpose … that is until you account for millions if not billions of mutations that no longer have a phenotype in modern humans.”…Evolutionist, Anonymous

Richard Dawkins, the world’s preeminent Atheist said the following with unconcealed sarcasm:


“Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA.” (Dawkins: The Information Challenge)

…it is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95 percent in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes.* The Greatest Show on Earth”

Although Encode wasn’t about “pseudogenes” there is increasing evidence that they have until now undiscovered function as well; Dawkins double downed and tripled down with this quote from “The Greatest Show on Earth”

“What pseudogenes are useful for is embarrassing creationists. It stretches even their creative ingenuity to make a convincing reason why an intelligent designer should have created a pseudogene — a gene that does absolutely nothing and gives every appearance of being a superannuated version of a gene that used to do something — unless he was deliberately setting out to fool us.”

Dawkins Was Wrong: The Encode Findings

ENCODE Project Writes Eulogy for Junk DNA, ScienceMag.org–September 2012 by Elizabeth Pennisi

“This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes”

Breakthrough Study Overturns Theory of ‘Junk DNA’ in Genome-Guardian UK

“Long stretches of DNA previously dismissed as “junk” are in fact crucial to the way our genome works, an international team of researchers said on Wednesday……

For years, the vast stretches of DNA between our 20,000 or so protein-coding genes – more than 98% of the genetic sequence inside each of our cells – was written off as “junk” DNA. Already falling out of favour in recent years, this concept will now, with Encode’s work, be consigned to the history books”

Junk DNA, In the Beginning.org
Les Sherlock, Sept 2012

“Well, now it is the evolutionists who are embarrassed – or certainly should be. For 40 years, ever since Susumu Ohno introduced the term in 1972, they have been waving ‘junk DNA’ in the face of creationists, asking why their Creator-God would have produced DNA with only 5% that had any function. Now they know, or are beginning to find out, that it wasn’t that it was without function, but simply that they knew too little about it to be aware of what it did. In fact this mirrors exactly the blunder they made 100 years ago or so, when they claimed over 100 human organs were vestigial: remnants of our evolutionary past that were no longer functional. They were wrong with vestigial organs 100 years ago, and they have been wrong for the past 40 years with junk DNA. Will they never learn?”

Bits of Mystery DNA, Far From ‘Junk,’ Play Crucial Role-The New York Times 9/6/2012
By GINA KOLATA

“Now scientists have discovered a vital clue to unraveling these riddles. The human genome is packed with at least four million gene switches that reside in bits of DNA that once were dismissed as “junk” but that turn out to play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave. The discovery, considered a major medical and scientific breakthrough, has enormous implications for human health because many complex diseases appear to be caused by tiny changes in hundreds of gene switches.

The findings, which are the fruit of an immense federal project involving 440 scientists from 32 laboratories around the world, will have immediate applications for understanding how alterations in the non-gene parts of DNA contribute to human diseases, which may in turn lead to new drugs. They can also help explain how the environment can affect disease risk. In the case of identical twins, small changes in environmental exposure can slightly alter gene switches, with the result that one twin gets a disease and the other does not.

As scientists delved into the “junk” — parts of the DNA that are not actual genes containing instructions for proteins — they discovered a complex system that controls genes. At least 80 percent of this DNA is active and needed.”

Monkey’s Uncle?

Evolutionists have trumpeted the similarity of the chimpanzee genome to that of humans, claiming that since the chimpanzee DNA profile matched ours up to 98% (debated number) that this was proof of evolution. However, the 98% number related to the 2% of the respective genomes that code for protein.

Given that, the Encode Project findings indicate that the vast majority of the two genomes are totally unrelated. In fact the extreme differences between the two species non coding DNA regions is too large to have occurred in the period alleged to have existed between the supposed evolution of chimps and man.

The Conclusion of it All

William Dembski sums up both the reasons materialists have for designating portions of the genome “junk” and why finding so much function in the genome tends to eliminate the possibility for evolutionary explanations to be correct.

“design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term “junk DNA.” Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through a long, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism.

Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA.

If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as “junk” merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function”….Dembski 1998

So far, the Encode Project and scientists working in this area have found function for only 80% of the genome.

It would now betray a certain, stubborn, anti scientific ignorance to believe function won’t be found for the entire DNA code-if the world stands.

See Also: Et tu, Pseudogenes? Another Type of “Junk” DNA Betrays Darwinian Predictions

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?

Math Musings

Church of Darwin, s8int.com, Uncategorized | 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

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

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

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

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