Posts Tagged ‘Science’

What Are Little Planets Made Of?

Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 05 2009

What are little planets made of?
What are little planets made of?
Frigid methane spills
And weak gravity fields
That’s what little planets are made of

Jun 05, 2009
Article Excerpt:What are little planets made of?

“……………As we have suggested in the recent past, rather than reckoning celestial bodies like Titan or Mercury to be geriatric denizens of a wizened Solar System where whatever catastrophes that might occur have long since run their courses, it is more reasonable, given the anomalies detailed for many years in the Thunderbolts Picture of the Day, to think of them as youthful members of a dynamic ensemble.

Mercury is probably a relatively young planet and may have come to its present orbit and circumstances within the last 10,000 years. If that is the case, then the presence of an atmosphere of whatever density would not be surprising. The presence of electric currents flowing like giant tornadoes into Mercury hint at a time when those currents might have been far more powerful.”

Stephen Smith,

Click Here to Read the Entire Article at

God, Help the Poor Men of Learning

Church of Darwin,, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 20 2009

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

Puzzles Men of Learning
Whether Petrified Sole of Shoe is a Fossil or Freak of Nature is Question
Moberly Democrat
May 23, 1922

The story of the “Lovelock shoe” is not near to us, but as we were specifically researching stories about giants in news articles of the past we came across this article which was contemporaneous with the discovery. It didn’t quite fit what we were researching but there were enough astounding statements in the article, stated so matter of fact-ly that we had to blog it.

It began; “What appears to be a petrified sole of a carefully made shoe has been submitted by John T. Reid, a mining engineer of Lovelock, Nev. To Dr. James F. Kemp, professor of geology at Columbia university, and to Dr. William D. Matthew, paleontologist of the American Museum of Natural History.

If it is what it looks like, it is proof that human beings were walking about in shoes of finer workmanship than are made today on this continent, between 10,000,000 and 300,000,000 years ago, the New York Times states.”

Today, those “geological periods” have been pushed even further back than they were in 1922. It was found in “blue limestone” Now, for evolution to be true, the discovery of a fossilized shoe in this strata presents unsolvable problems. This is not the case with the Biblical version of the history of this planet.

The two eminent scientists of the time, after a thorough examination of the fossil declared it “the most surprising imitation by nature of the workmanship of man which had ever come to their attention…”

Wow. Really? Indeed!

The initial part of their statement is “ironic” and no doubt lead to the “puzzlement” experienced by these men of learning.

Listen now to the full weight of their knowledge being brought to bear; the scientific method at work no doubt; to conclusions one could only reach after years of dedicated study and strict reliance on the Darwin paradigm.

“it would be absolutely impossible that it could be a genuine fossil because the evidence was overwhelming that the career of human beings on earth was not over a half million years, whereas the Triassic rock of the neatly sculptured sole is made more ancient”.

Concerning the ‘shoe” the symmetry of the sole was reported to have remained perfect throughout. The shoe was reported to be of a size to nicely fit a 10 to 12 year old boy of the 1920’s. There was reported to be a clearly defined double line of stitching around the circumference of the sole. There appeared to be hundreds of tiny holes in the sole in the places where one would expect the shoe and the sole to be sewed together.

Unpuzzle yourselves. Maybe the world isn’t really billions of years old. Maybe some of your sophisticated ancestors were around when the rock was formed-not so many years ago? Question: are we going to believe the wise men of this age–or are we going to believe our own “lying eyes”? ;0)

Debunking the “150 Million Year Old Reptile” Ichthyosaur Mythology
Extinct for 95 Million Years, Maybe Not!
Convergent Ichthyosaur Evolution, A Fairy Tale

Church of Darwin, Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature,, Science, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Aug 03 2008

by Chris Parker, Copy Right 2008

Photo: This “dolphin shaped ceramic from Eretria, 310 B.C., shares an important morphological characteristic with the ichthyosaurs; 4 fins.

“The earliest dolphins appeared in the late Miocene period, some 11 million years ago. The land animals that are closest to whales and dolphins are the Ungulates (hoofed animals). This was determined among others by comparing the structure of body proteins. The closest relative is probably the hippopotamus”(Ursing and Arnason, 1998).”

That foregoing statement divides the world into three groups; those who are so “smart” that they have to believe it, (like PH’D’s) those who are gullible enough to believe something like that and –the rest of us. Thankfully, a majority of us still resist the evolution religion and are in the third group.

This article is ostensibly not about dolphins and whales but rather is about creatures that science has named “ichthyosaurs”, (fish-reptiles) and how they became classified by science as reptiles, unrelated to whales and dolphins, who supposedly died out more than 95 million years ago—some 85 million years prior to the evolution of dolphins who they most resemble morphologically.

In this brief article, I believe that we can show that there is; scant evidence that Ichthyosaurs were reptiles, or at least we can demonstrate that there is more evidence to show that they were Not reptiles, and that they did not become extinct millions of years ago and thus; are not an example of “convergent evolution”.

In addition, I intend to show that they were as you might expect, closely related to the Cetaceans like dolphins and porpoises….

Click Here to Read Article