Monthly Archives: April 2012

Sharing your Reasons

Mass spectrometer used in radiometric dating

Mass spectrometer used in radiometric dating

I was looking around at Creation Magazine for their writers’ guidelines and had a look at what they’ve been up to recently.  This article fit right in to how scientist date things from my Ice Age article today and haven’t had time to dive into:  Radiometric Dating and the age of the earth.

Although this example is of a man talking to someone at his church, there is no reason you have to wait to be a grown-up to do this!

A Conversation Arising from Creation Magazine.

 

Answers in Genesis The Nazca Lines

I’m working on something else at the moment, but when I visited AiG just now, what should I see on their new article list, but this:

Nazca Lines:  Not Your Ordinary Ground Graffiti

I’ll post this link in my Ancient Optics page, but I didn’t want those of you who’ve already read Friday’s post to miss this!

Tomorrow is Astronomy Day!!

Three people enjoy the summer sky over the Del...

 

I’m posting this early so you can take full advantage of this offer from Living Waters Ministry.  They always put a few items up on sale for the weekend and this week they’ve got a Creation DVD called God of Wonders on Sale.  I’ve not watched it myself and have to get going, but I’m sure it’s worth checking out!!

Ancient Optics

Nazca Lines - Spider

Nazca Lines – Spider (Photo credit: CB Photography)

One of the very cool things I’ve learned in the past year or so is just how small of things that the ancients could see.  The first time I heard about this ability was when I learned about the Nazca Lines of Peru.  These are actually huge, shallow ditches carved out of the desert plain.  The pictures we can still see are of a sorts of things including a monkey, condor and this spider.It’s impossible to see on the picture I found for my post, but if you click on the spider picture I got from the the Wikipedia page, you will see that one leg has a long bend that extends far beyond the carefully carved legs on the rest of the drawing.  Continue reading

Feathered Dinosaurs

Lebendrekonstruktion von Deinonychus im Naturh...

Museum of Vienna Reconstruction from Stephen Czerkas

The other day I went to the kids’ section of my local library and borrowed a book on feathered dinosaurs so I could tell you all about them.  As I pointed out on Friday, I was quite disturbed by the author’s use of absolute language to describe things that no one now could possibly know just by looking at animal remains in the rocks.  So let’s see how what the book says and what we actually do know match up.

The first dino in the book is called the “Bambiraptor.”  Yes, that is Bambi as in the movie deer!  It was found by a kid out in Montana, which is very cool.  Maybe you can talk your family into going out there for your next vacation!!  Now, my book uses this one as their poster-child of the feathered dinosaurs.  But if you look at the Wikipedia page about this critter, it wasn’t found with feathers at all.

Turns out that most of the feathered dinosaurs that they like to use have only been found with “filamentous integument.”  Now that phrase led me on a merry search to find out what those words mean.  Here’s the definition from biology online: filamentous and integument.  All right, what does this mean?  It means what they actually see on the edges of these dinosaurs are long, stringy things that could have originally been part of the surface of the skin.  There is no way you could get from these fibers to feathers unless you needed them to be there.  John MacKay talks about what is actually going on HERE.

This phrase from the Wikipedia page on feathered dinosaurs is especially telling, “The dromaeosaurids Rahonavis and Velociraptor have both been found with quill knobs, showing that these forms had feathers despite no impressions having been found.”  And they want to say we are the only ones who live by faith.

Here are some more of the featured creatures in my book on feathered dinosaurs.  Mononykus (I don’t have to add a thing, just read the Wikipedia article), Beipiaosaurus (have a look at what they actually found by reading about the EBFFs), Troodon, Sinosauropteryx (All described specimens of Sinosauropteryx preserve integumentary structures (filaments arising from the skin) which most palaeontologists interpret as very primitive feathers.), and Deinonychus (Because of its extremely bird-like anatomy and close relationship to other dromaeosaurids, paleontologists hypothesize that Deinonychus was probably covered in feathers.).

This stuff is really highly disappointing.  I was expecting them to be able to better than this.  But wait, I skipped over a couple of examples!

Size comparison between the extinct oviraptoro...

Size comparison between the extinct oviraptorosaurian dinosaur (or possibly flightless bird) Protarchaeopteryx and a human. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Protarchaeopteryx and Microraptor are the last two examples in the book.  Is this really all we have to go on about Protarchaeopteryx?  I have to include this page just for this quote, “A good example is Protarchaeopteryx, which translates as “before Archaeopteryx,” even though this birdlike dinosaur lived tens of millions of years after its more famous ancestor.” Huh??  Have a look at this Evolution News article.  They haven’t even manage to keep a lid on their own people to tow the party line of “dinosaurs turned into birds.”

As for Microraptor, have a look at this quote from Wikipedia, “In the December 6, 2011 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Jingmai O’Connor and coauthors described a Microraptor specimen containing bird bones in its abdomen, specifically a partial wing and feet. Their position indicate that the dinosaur swallowed a tree-perching bird whole.”  So much for it being a bird’s ancestor.  I’ve spent several hours reading everything Wikipedia has to say about these animals as well as searching around on the internet.  I haven’t run into any explanation for their belief that these two true-feathered critters must be reptiles and cannot be birds.  They just state it without any evidence to back their claim.

I also ran into an interesting article about the position Microraptor had to hold its wings in to keep from damaging its feathers. But that doesn’t say anything about what class of animals it belongs to.  If they can’t even prove that Protarchaeopteryx and Microraptor aren’t birds, there is no reason to cave in to what they tell us to believe, which is that these were sort-of dinosaur, sort-of bird things.

Institute in Creation Research has a short article on Microraptor. I did run into a blog article trying to refute their article, which rightly pointed out that it’s not necessary for an animal to fly in order to catch a bird to eat. I hope ICR will be careful on their side, too!

Searching around I ran into this little guy, the Shuvuuia which wasn’t covered in the kids’ book.  Have a look at their line of reasoning proving that the vague fossil impressions found must be feathers, “The type specimen of Shuvuuia was found surrounded by small, hollow, tube-like structures resembling the rachis (central vane) of modern bird feathers. Though highly deteriorated and poorly preserved, biochemical analyses later showed that these structures contain decay products of the protein beta-keratin, and more significantly, the absence of alpha-keratin. While beta-keratin is found in all integumentary (skin and feather) cells of reptiles and birds, only bird feathers completely lack alpha-keratin. These findings show that, though poorly preserved, Shuvuuia likely possessed a coat of feathers.”

In English this means, “The tube-thingys we see don’t show alpha-keratin.  Bird feathers don’t have alpha-keratin either.  Therefore, this dinosaur must have had bird feathers.” Sure, and I bet they can prove any number of things with that easy a process, too.

Is this the way the information we actually have is presented in the book for kids?  Not a chance!  They did do kids the favor of using the fuzzy words, “probably were feathers” and “may have had simple feathers” on some of the pages, but the rest of the book states its author’s assumptions as facts.  “Sinosauropteryx was covered from head to tail in fine, fuzzy down” and “Beipiaosaurus was a big feathered dinosaur” are stated without any indication of the guesswork involved.  Of course, the pictures on every page are the classic way to show kids that these claims are verifiable.  They don’t show the fossils we actually have to work with, just CG created still-shots, complete with proper plant and prey backgrounds to increase the believability.

We know there were some really cool animals in the past.  We can all share them and enjoy them.  Why lie to us unless you have an agenda that you can’t fulfil in any other way?

Article about Dr. Alan Feduccia, Evolutionary ornothologist’s findings.

Institute for Creation Research: Fossil Fibers Befuddle Dinosaur Evolution

An excellent (really long) article by True Origins Archives

Creation Science Movement: More Disagreement Over Birds and Theropod Dinosaurs

Lots of news about feathered dinosaurs covered by Answers in Genesis:

News to Note: March 17, 2012

News to Note: September 24, 2011

News to Note: January 30, 2010

New to Note: October 3, 2009

News to Note Jan.17, 2009 Article #5

And an article on the subject from AiG:

Did Dinosaurs turn into Birds? by David Menton

Can your Worldview do this?

Ethel Waters

Ethel Waters

I’ve gotten a couple of pingbacks from Evolutionary/Atheistic Blogs since my article yesterday.

I also attended a mommy’s gathering where we watched this video from Ethel Waters who didn’t start out at all happy, but after she found Jesus this is what she was like:

Youtube Video: His Eye is on the Sparrow

Every person I’ve ever seen who looked this radiant,  knew that their Savior is Jesus the Christ.

Some Biographical info on Ethel Waters:

Short Life Story Bio

Exerpt from I Touched a Sparrow by Twila  Knaack

Best Proof that Creation Science is real

Fontanes (Lozère, Fr), sheep on the mountain m...Yesterday For His Glory and Praise tagged me with a question and it’s a good one, so here goes.

She said, “You have a great site that gives a lot of information on creation science, so my question to you is what is the one thing that you would share with kids as the best proof of the validity of Creation Science, and why?”

This isn’t the easiest question to answer.  I could point out any number of facts around the world that fit our worldview better than an Evolutionist’s, but none of these in themselves will convince anyone. Continue reading

Another Creationist Scientist

Photo of a cloud illuminated by sunlight.

Since my homepage is set to Answers in Genesis, I took an extra minute just now to see what had been posted this afternoon.  Looks like this was the right time to start discussing Bible Believing Scientists!  It’s kind of sad to hear that this one has joined the crowd up in heaven now, but isn’t heaven going to be fun hanging out with people like this?

 

Obituary letter for Professor John Rendle-Short by Ken Ham.

 

Thank you, God, for the work you were able to do through this servant of Yours and for the hope we can have of meeting him again one day!!

 

Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us,  Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the throne of God. Hebrews 12:1,2