Archive for the ‘CrEvo News Bites’ Category

Chickenasaurus attacks! Genesis Week, episode 2, season 1

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

In this episode we discuss Dr. Jack Horner’s “chickenasaurus,” more teaching of creation in public schools, and we cover emails received containing some mysterious white powder.

 

Alien Skull???

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

Had a pile of people asking me about this “Alien skull” that was found in Peru.

Like something straight outa Indiana Jones and the crystal skull, a child’s skeleton with a bizarre, elongated skull has come to light:

Story is here:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/mysterious-triangle-shaped-alien-skull-found-peru-161615656.html

 

Lots ‘o photos here:

http://guanabee.com/gallery/non-human-peruvian-alien-mummy-pictures/non-human-peruvian-alien-mummy-pictures-01/

 

To add to the fray, several “scientists” from Russia and Spain claimed it was an alien skull.

This is actually old news – I’d seen skulls like this some 15 years ago. I was quite shocked at first (as I’m sure some viewers have been), however, this is typical head binding and Trephination.  Trephination is the drilling of a hole in the skull, and head binding is a practice of binding a newborn’s head with a board and cushion, in order to shape the child’s skull as it develops. This practice is actually found all over the world, and usually used in conjunction with trephination, in order to relieve pressures in the skull from the head binding.

Some other examples:

http://www.skullsunlimited.com/record_species.php?id=1959

 

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/71151/body-modifications-and-mutilations/8270/The-head

http://opposingdigits.com/forums/about1265.html&highlight=

No one really knows why cultures do this, but there is a lot of mutilation or modification of the human body in a lot of cultures.

 

Now in the case of the new peruvian skull, yes, the skull is unusually large – but that can be a variety of reasons and yet it’s still completely human.

In short, I disagree that it’s an alien skull.  It is a modified human, that’s all.

Dinosaur death pose caused by ….water!

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

Yup, as I have contended for many years now, the classic “death pose” position in which we find so many organisms (most notably the dinosaurs), seems to be cause by water.
I talked about this in Complete Creation, part 3, and previously on this webpage.

I was focusing on asphyxiation and rapid burial, with Padian and Faux essentially coming to the same conclusion in their 2007 paper.

 

Now it seems another method of achieving the “death pose”  post-mortem (after death) can also be accomplished, using…..(wait for it)….water!

Read all about it:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228404.600-is-water-the-secret-of-the-dinosaur-death-pose.html

So once again the death of the dinosaurs and the resulting “death pose” is a consequence of water.  The best explanation for the death of the dinosaurs is a global flood.  Always has been the best explanation, always will be, because it matches the evidence.

Whale bones…in the desert….again….

Wednesday, November 23rd, 2011

I’ve been bombarded this past week with people asking about the fossil whales found during the expansion of a highway in Chile:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/ancient-whale-bones-discovered-desert-parents-outraged-hooters-165721306.html

Everyone already gets it – it was a world-wide flood that put’em there. :) Not much to comment except this isn’t the first case of a whale in the wrong place, probably won’t be the last. We find marine critters like the Mosasaur, found in the middle of Texas. Not far from my home in Ontario was found the “Mount Pakenham Whale” – fossilized remains found 500 feet above sea level, probably close to 1,000 kilometers inland from the ocean. Of course, they’re blaming that one on isostatic rebound after the ice age, of which for a variety of reasons I’m skeptical. It makes a lot more sense to just explain it within the context of a world-wide flood.

More on “Noah’s Ark” find

Monday, December 6th, 2010

As I previously reported, many of us “in the know” (and I was nowhere near as much “in the know” as the people I mention here) were highly skeptical of the Hong Kong NAMI team’s alleged finding of Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat, in Turkey, announced in the summer of this past year.

What followed after the initial media releases and consequent public skepticism by people like Dr. Randall Price and Dr. Don Patton, was a barrage of confusing and messed-up statements made in defense by the NAMI team.

Problem was, I was not part of any of the teams, and even I knew that NAMI was publicizing incorrect claims and information. For example, in one of the videos they posted on their website in their defense, the NAMI team claimed they had Panda (one of their team members) visit the alleged ark without the knowledge of Price and Patton. I couldn’t understand how they could say this, because even with my minimal insider information, I knew when Panda was at the location and sending back reports! I was sworn to secrecy at the time and made no mention of it to anyone, because loose lips tend to kill people over in that part of the world.

Again, while I’m not accusing the NAMI team of deliberate fraud, the facts are that they are promoting a fraud, and raising funds to research it.  Their reporting and research has been incredibly sloppy, unprofessional, and just plain inaccurate at best.  And unfortunately people are still asking about this “find.”

Drs. Price and Patton recently released some public commentary, detailing the facts that they know, as well as some follow-up research. I will simply point to their commentaries, because they have done a splendid job detailing the facts:

http://www.worldofthebible.com/Documents/Fall2010.pdf

Dr. Patton also put together a video documenting the shenanigans:

(30 megs) Windows format:

http://www.noahs-ark.tv/patton-noahs-ark-nami-fraud.wmv

(60 megs) Flash Format:

http://www.noahs-ark.tv/patton-noahs-ark-nami-fraud.f4v

(70 megs) Real Player format:

http://www.noahs-ark.tv/patton-noahs-ark-nami-fraud.ram

I mean no harm to the NAMI team, but what am I supposed to say? People keep asking me about the NAMI team’s finding, and the NAMI team keeps on promoting and fundraising for a fraud.

News Bite: Oh, now the eye IS a good design???

Friday, May 14th, 2010

I’ve heard the anti-creationists whine so often about how we’re so  “poorly designed,” that it has inspired not one, but two CrEvo rants.  The first rant, where I dealt with the argument from a general point of view was just to show the incredibly arrogant falacy of such claims:

CrEvo Rant #67: Poor Design? (Lessons from the robots, Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns0KpZJE9F4

The second rant was also my most recent, spurned by the most common “poor design” argument of all, the ridiculous claim that the human eye was “poorly designed.”

CrEvo Rant #50: The eye and the snowflake

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dn8V0DXaq8U

Well now looky here!  After years of anti-creationist mantra about how the human eye is a poor design (and the creationary community pointing out for many years why the human eye is designed the way it is),  the anti-creationists now turn around and give credit to the god of evolution for the incredible design of the eye!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627594.000-evolution-gave-flawed-eye-better-vision.html

Comments from the famous theistic evolutionist, Dr. Kenneth Miller at the end are especially noteworthy:
” However, Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island cautions that this doesn’t mean that the backwards retina itself helps us to see. Rather, it emphasises the extent to which evolution has coped with the flawed layout. “The shape, orientation and structure of the Müller cells help the retina to overcome one of the principal shortcomings of its inside-out wiring,” says Miller.”

C’mon Miller!  Get with the times and do some research, and catch up on the facts the creationary camp has been pointing out for years!  The eye was built with an “inverted retina” for a reason:

http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp

Of course, this is typical behaviour of the anti-creationist camp – evolution has hindered medical research.  For many, many years, if a particular organ seemed to have no function, it was immediately labeled as a “vestigial organ” – a useless leftover from our evolutionary history.  The Creationary camp of course, would look at it, assuming the human body was designed they would assume therefore that this organ must have a purupose, and went searching for the purpose. This has led to the advancement of discovery and science, whereas evolution has retarded science and medical research.  Once again, we see this hindrance of scientific research rearing its ugly head.  Creationists once again lead the way in discovery because we sought an answer, instead of assuming there wasn’t one, and it has to do with our world view.  Your world view effects everything you do, including your science.

“CrEvo News Bites” are short commentaries from Ian Juby on current events relating to creation and evolution.  You can subscribe by visiting his blog at: http://ianjuby.org/newsletter.  He has many informative hours of video available for free viewing on line, including his exhaustive, 12-hour “Complete Creation” video series – a veritable video encyclopedia.  http://completecreation.orghttp://youtube.com/wazooloo

News Bites: Migrating bird new world record

Saturday, May 8th, 2010

(photo courtesy of Phil Battley, from Plosbiology Creative commons licensing)

From the “Incredible creation” files, satellite tracking tags on migratory birds have now demonstrated a shattered record for long-distance migration.

Known migration patterns are already amazing, what with examples like the hummingbird crossing the Gulf of Mexico in one flight, the American Golden Plovers flying 4,000 kms between Nova Scotia and South America, and the Red Knots flying 4,800 kms between the Wadden sea and Taymyr.

The hummingbird takes between 18 and 24 hours to fly across the Gulf of Mexico (depending on weather) – let’s say it’s an average of 20 hours.  At an average of 40 beats per second, that’s 2,880,000 wing beats, non-stop!

But all of this is nothing.  With the aid of ultra-small satellite tracking tags on the Alaskan bar-tailed godwit, a new record has been set.

Are you sitting down?

We now know that the godwit flies from Alaska to Australia in one, 8-day, 11,000 km, non-stop flight.

http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000362

An extended-range 747 jumbo jet can fly ~14,000 kms, whereas the new double-decker airbus 380 (shown below) can fly around 15,000 kms.

Such aircraft require a lot of careful engineering just for the guidance systems, let alone flight control, etc…  No one would make the preposterous suggestion that these aircraft were not designed.  And yet the godwit blows the doors off the aircraft in efficiency, energy consumption, internal guidance system, etc…  In fact, a couple of the godwits that were originally tagged didn’t make it to New Zealand because the tags messed up the design of the bird!  The satellite tags had to be re-engineered and surgically implanted so as not to interfere with the flight of the bird.

All throughout the Plos article, you can see the necessary nod to evolutionism that must be made in any scientific publication (lest you be barred from being a “real scientist”), and yet the authors are stymied and can’t help but use the word “design:”

“Fit for Purpose—What Is the Optimal Design for Long-Distance Flight?”

“We know that the godwit displays no exceptional design features…”

They also can’t figure out how on earth all of this could have evolved – or why for that matter.

“How Did Such Long-Distance Migration Evolve?”


” It is unlikely that naïve short distance migratory birds accidentally reached

New Zealand to establish this migration route…”

Well, the reason they can’t figure out how or why such a system evolved is because the godwit was incredibly designed.

“CrEvo News Bites” are short commentaries from Ian Juby on current events relating to creation and evolution.  You can subscribe by visiting his blog at: http://ianjuby.org/newsletter.  He has many informative hours of video available for free viewing on line, including his exhaustive, 12-hour “Complete Creation” video series – a veritable video encyclopedia.  http://completecreation.orghttp://youtube.com/wazooloo

Mars Rock revisited

Friday, May 7th, 2010

Today’s New Bite is actually old news – a meteorite reported on back in 1996, claimed to be from mars, and allegedly containing fossils of bacteria within.

(Photo courtesy NASA)

The original research was rejected by the majority of scientists – and with good reason.  However, the researchers have brought it back from the dead to go for another round.

Now of course, the meteorite wasn’t found on mars, it was found in Antarctica!  So how then do we know the rock came from mars?  Science is based on observation, using our five senses (even if those senses are extended by machinery), so as it was so aptly put by ScienceAgainstEvolution.org, we know the rock came from mars because:

a) it looks like it came from mars

b) it smells like it came from mars

c) it tastes like it came from mars

d) it sounds like it came from mars

e) it feels like it came from mars

When you glance through the Washington post article, you’ll notice:

“the meteorites they are studying — which can be identified as Martian because the gases inside them match the Martian atmosphere — contain the remains of living organisms.”

So then according to NASA, the correct answer is b) we know the rock is from mars because it smells like it came from mars.  There is no other reason to believe the meteorite came from mars.

So the source of the rock is highly questionable at best.  Then there’s the matter of the “fossil bacteria” found within the rock, which has been hotly debated by the evolutionary scientists themselves, with the majority rejecting the “fossils” as such, and instead claiming these are nothing more then geological artifacts.

The “martian meteor” researcher, McKay “pointed to the presence of what appear to be fossilized microbes in other Martian meteorites,” according to Washington post.  Now hold on a minute here: Let’s say that this is true.  Let’s say that yes, there are multiple meteorites that have been found with fossil bacteria in them.  The idea that multiple meteorites could be launched from mars, each with fossil bacteria in them, on a favourable trajectory that allowed the meteorites to land on earth, is stretching credibility to the breaking point frankly.

Instead, I would suggest that a far more feasible explanation would be that these rocks came from earth, and are simply returning home.  “How?” you might ask, to which I would simply encourage you to read through Dr. Walter T. Brown’s hydroplate model, and in particular his chapter on the origin of comets, meteoroids and asteroids. His entire book is available on line, for free at http://creationscience.com

This is a vastly superior model to any evolutionary model which has rocks from mars somehow magically getting ejected into space and landing on earth.

“CrEvo News Bites” are short commentaries from Ian Juby on current events relating to creation and evolution.  You can subscribe by visiting his blog at: http://ianjuby.org/newsletter.  He has many informative hours of video available for free viewing on line, including his exhaustive, 12-hour “Complete Creation” video series – a veritable video encyclopedia.  http://completecreation.orghttp://youtube.com/wazooloo

News Bite: Still no evidence for evolution

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Ten times in the first chapter of Genesis, it is stated that God created everything to reproduce after its kind. So in other words, according to creation, we should see things staying the same over time and faithfully reproducing after their kind.  Of course, evolution has organisms changing over time – and changing lots.

When one looks in the fossil record,  what we see is stasis and extinction – both of which fit well within the creation paradigm, but run opposite the predictions that evolutionary theory would make.

So even playing by the evolutionary rules, the evidence does not stack up for evolution.  A recent study (using evolutionary assumptions and rules) is now saying the same thing from genetics:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100429172956.htm

In the words of Science Daily,

“A genetic study of island lizards shows that even those that have been geographically isolated

for many millions of years have not evolved into separate species as predicted by conventional evolutionary theory.”


The lizards in the study, even given evolutionary assumptions of millions of years, still interbreed with each other and have not been isolated into different “species.”  This is just one more piece of evidence that evolution is simply not true, but does match the Biblical account of creation.

Ptexas Pterosaur

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

From Fox News:

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/28/flying-dinosaur-reptile-pterosaur-texas/

A new, Ptoothy Pterodactyl which was unearthed in Ptexas in 2006, is now being reported.  Of course, such discoveries are always assigned an evolutionary age of millions and millions of years. Question: How do they know how old it is?  Answer: They don’t – it’s assumed. You can’t date sedimentary rocks using radiometric dating methods, but usually there’s biomatter in dinosaur bones – which does mean it can be carbon dated.

Herein lies the problem: C14 (Carbon 14) dating methods always return ages of between 5,000 years old and 50,000 years old, no matter the alleged “age” of the fossil bone, oil, coal, natural gas, CO2 from gas wells, etc…  All of these examples are supposed to be many millions of years old, which means they should have ZERO C14 in them.  The fact that they have plenty tells you right off the bat they are not millions of years old, they are only a few thousand years old.

Further to this, did you ever notice that the fossil record only shows two things: Extinction, and stasis.  I don’t think I need to explain extinction, but I will point out that this does not help evolution one bit – extinction is a loss of variety, a loss of a species, not a gain as evolution needs.

Stasis is an organism remaining the same over alleged millions of years.  The Coelacanth is a classic example.  The Bible says (ten times in the first chapter of Genesis) that God created everything to reproduce after its kind. Evolution has organisms changing over time.  Stasis is what we find in the fossil record, not change – and I give a few examples of this in part 10 of “The Complete Creation” video series, available for viewing for free on the complete creation website:

http://completecreation.org/

Life on an asteroid

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

(Photo by NASA)

Splashed across the headlines of the past two days are the “discoveries” of ice and organic materials on an asteroid.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428142302.htm

Actually, this is old news – spectrascopic analysis of comet tails had already shown gases like methane, presumed to be from decaying biomatter in the comet.  Asteroids have been known for a while now to have considerable water content – so really this is nothing new.  Further to this, meteorites have been found containing water, salt, and at least two meteorites have been found with living bacteria contained within them.

(http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html see heading “Meteorites return home” near the bottom of the page)

Of course the evolutionary theorists like to point to this, speculating that perhaps Earth was “seeded” from space with life, which then evolved.  This does not answer the un-answerable problem of the origin of the first life – it is simply an attempt to put the problem as far away as possible, and as long ago as possible.  (Now picture the Star Wars opening screen, text scrolling off into the distance, “In a galaxy far, far, far, far, far, away, many, many, many, many billions of years ago, the impossible became probable, and the probable became inevitable because of the extreme distance and time…”)

So far as we know, the laws of physics and nature still apply in the far reaches of the solar system.  Therefore, well-established scientific and natural laws apply there – laws like the law of biogenesis which states that life only arises from life, and there has never been an observed exception to this rule, hence the reason it is a law.

An explanation that is far, far, far more plausible is that the water, salt, and bacteria (and possible decaying biomatter) in the asteroids, comets and meteorites came from Earth.  For one theory as to how this could happen, do take the time to read the hydroplate theory put together by Dr. Walter T. Brown, and in particular, pay attention to this “Origin of Asteroids and Meteoroids” chapter:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Asteroids2.html

Alaska had a “mega-flood” – gee, ya think?

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

(Giant wave ripples in Alaska, photo courtesy of Michael Wiedmer, as shown in Quaternary Research)

From Science News:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100428142338.htm

Oh look – giant wave ripples in Alaska!  From a “megaflood.”  Now notice that whenever chatter is made of megafloods, it is always in reference to an ice-age lake breaching its dam.  Well, 100 foot high wave ripples, spaced a half-mile apart is a pretty big lake.  Reading the article, you’ll notice the researchers are not afraid to use catastrophic terms – as long as it does not refer to a global flood.

Such giant wave ripple features are not at all uncommon either.  This is what led to the discovery of the Missoula flood (not much doubt that one was an ice-age lake), and you can see giant wave ripples all over Alberta, Manitoba, and at several locations here in Ontario.

While I don’t doubt that some of these are from ice-age lakes, I would suggest that at least some of these giant wave ripples are actually from the receding flood waters of the global flood.  But, because evolutionary thinking does not allow for there to have been a global flood, this possibility is not even considered – in spite of the evidence, not because of it.

I should be clear too: Evolution will not permit consideration of a global flood.  Science is perfectly open to it – there is a difference between the two.  Science pursues the facts, Evolution does not even permit possibilities – the opposite of science.

Here are some KMZ links for Google Earth/Worldwind to view the giant wave ripples in Alaska and Manitoba:

Alaska: http://ianjuby.org/newsletters/giant_alaska_dunes.kmz

Manitoba: http://ianjuby.org/newsletters/manitoba_wave_ripples.kmz

The wave ripples in Manitoba are about 1 kilometer, crest-to-crest, and up to 15 meters high.  I know this because I went and personally studied them after seeing them from a jetliner.

Life on Mars! (hopefully it’s intelligent – there aint none here!)

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

Straight from the Sun:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2951855/Nasa-Evidence-of-life-on-mars.html

(By the way, if you read the article, you’ll need your British/Canadian dictionary handy – a “boffin” is a scientist/researcher)

NASA has said they now have evidence of life on Mars.  BUT – don’t get too excited just yet, they didn’t find life, they only found gypsum, which may indicate that there may have been “pond scum,” which the Sun article claims is “the building blocks of life as we know it.”

Actually, even pond scum is incredibly complex.

As a news bite, I’m not gonna say much:

1) They didn’t find life, they didn’t find pond scum – they found minerals which they think may have been laid down by pond scum. (or perhaps it formed by other natural processes)

2) Even if there is “pond scum” on Mars, then one must ask if the pond scum evolved there, or was Mars contaminated by Earth?  We do have pond scum here – and the possibility that the pond scum somehow got from earth to Mars is far, far, far better then pond scum evolving from non-living materials on Mars.

I deal with the subject of life on other planets in my soon-to-be-released video “Aliens and the evolution connection.”

Noah’s ark “found”?

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

I got a barrage of emails over the past couple of days regarding a press conference claiming that Noah’s ark has been found on Mt. Ararat.

I have many friends who have been expedition organizers/participants on Mt. Ararat as they searched for Noah’s ark, and while I haven’t personally been there yet, I have been invited to participate in expeditions.  After getting a second-hand email from Randall Price (who’s been on Ararat multiple times) giving cautioning words, I also phoned Dr. Don Patton to discuss the recent press release.

The Press Release:

You can read a report on the press release here:

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2949640/Noahs-Ark-found-in-Turkey.html

And the website for the Hong Kong search team:

http://www.noahsarksearch.net/eng/

The history:
First, you need to understand that this is the same team that claimed to have a piece of petrified wood, assumed to be part of Noah’s ark, taken from Mt. Ararat two years ago:

http://www.thepeninsulaqatar.com/Display_news.asp?section=local_news&month=january2008&file=local_news2008011955044.xml

After the 2008 press release, Dr. Patton and another friend of mine, Dr. Don Shockey (another long-time Noah’s ark researcher and Ararat explorer) flew to Hong Kong to meet with the Chinese team to discuss their findings, and see if they could possibly collaborate on research.

It very quickly became apparent that the “petrified wood” was simply volcanic rock, and not petrified wood at all.  An honest mistake, but unfortunately, this particular piece of “wood” has resurfaced with the media hub-bub of this past week.  This “petrified wood” was not the sample that was carbon dated, mentioned in this recent press release (more on that in a minute).

The person who “found” the site is a Turkish man by the name of Parasut, who has already been known to con ark researchers in the past, and it would appear that this particular case is no different.  Parasut has been the “guide” for the Hong Kong team.

(more…)

So much for the consensus…

Wednesday, April 28th, 2010

(Photo credit:  SWNS, one of the fossils Price, et al believe builds the case

that environmental changes killed the dinosaurs)

In my last newsletter, you’ll recall I reported on a team of 41 international scientists who got together to finally decide that it was an asteroid or comet that killed off the dinosaurs during the cretaceous. In that report, I explained why they were wrong and why Noah’s flood was the most likely culprit for killing off the dinos.
Of course, the anti-creationist camp touted their usual mockings towards myself and my fellow creationary thinkers, claiming that the issue was obviously settled, seeing as how 41 scientists came to the same conclusion, obviously we creationists were wrong, and the “scientists” were right (as if being a creationist has anything to do with whether or not you’re a scientist).

Well not two weeks after my report, another team of scientists conclude that NO, it was not an impact that killed the dinosaurs, it was a sudden temperature drop:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/dinosaurs/7624014/Dinosaurs-died-from-sudden-temperature-drop-not-comet-strike-scientists-claim.html

Of course, these scientists are also wrong for a variety of reasons, but I’ll write about that later. I just want to point out that no, the issue is most certainly not settled amongst the evolutionary/old earth camp, and the reason for that is because they have denied the blatantly obvious conclusion that one would arrive at by examining the evidence: It was a global flood that killed the dinosaurs.

More to come in my upcoming CrEvo newsletter.