Search This Blog

Friday, December 07, 2012

What is Creation and Evolution and who cares? Part Five!

Clearly, Louis Pasteur (last post) was a truth-seeker AND a scientist of accomplishment.   He was both great and good.   He also used the real scientific method to prove that life does NOT come from non-life, which means Darwinism is hopeless.   Evolution would have had no life to work with without God.   Then again information must have an intelligent source.   To ensure you realize this, I have begun the series which started with this one.

Today is post five of a 12-part overview of Creation versus Evolution.

But back to Ian Juby:


radar said...

You have to research to find where some links have gone. Since Ian gave this lecture, some references have disappeared online. I easily found the one above concerning the basking shark/dinosaur. I had been convinced that the Japanese trawler had pulled up a basking shark, but then again I read an article by Glen Kuban and I should have known better.

Since Kent Hovind had proclaimed this a plesiosaur, I was loathe to believe it as I did not want to use him as a resource. Now it is possible to believe that the carcass that was dragged up could well be an unknown plesiosaur-type creature rather than a basking shark and, in fact, Ian makes some good points about that carcass. Had it been found today, there would have been more creation scientists quick to move in and examine it to see if it might be a significant find. But it was found when Creation Science was just beginning to rebuild among scientists after decades of evolutionist domination. is the address for Malcolm Bowden's treatise on the Japanese carcass.

I have to admit that I was wrong, the carcass is NOT a basking shark and while likely NOT a plesiosaur either, it is a creature much like one. We have seen that many kinds of animals fill the same biological niche. Very likely this is a case of both dinosaur and mammal with similar builds and likely similar functions in the ecosystem. Certainly there are many aquatic mammals that compete with sharks (dolphins actually wage war against sharks systematically and have been known to defend swimmers from shark attacks) - e.g.

Ian Juby and other creationists have done extensive research on human and dinosaur footprints using various modern technologies to show that these are genuine prints preserved that prove dinosaur and man lived at the same time.

Jon W said...

Squirmy interpretations from some fuzzy old black-and-white photographs are considered more reliable than tissue sample analyses? Yes, tissue samples were kept from the Zuiyo-maru carcass and analyzed in proper bio labs. They matched closely with sharks, not at all with marine reptiles. But don't let that stop you, Radar! As a proud creationist, you have the right, nay, the duty to ignore any evidence that doesn't match your preconceived conclusions!

radar said...

Since the so-called analysis was done by Darwinists who are among the most untrustworthy and unsavory of all of them, that bio lab analysis isn't worth two cents. I do not believe that the analysis can be trusted because the source is known to be untrustworthy. I checked it out and realized that I never should have considered such evidence as worth mentioning.

Ian Juby may have used some evidence that I would not use, but they again we know more about Hovind than we did on the week he made these videos. He has the right to use any evidence he believes is true no matter what.

There are some organizations that have deliberately published false information. I do not mean that they were mistaken, I mean they know or were shown that their information was false but continued to publish it. Climate organizations like the IPCC and CRU are among such organizations. So and the NCSE. I would not trust a thing they say or publish. I also avoid Kent Hovind because he also knowingly falsified evidence to supposedly bolster the creationist cause.

Only the real evidence and the logic applied to analyze and test it matters. I would not support someone who could bring millions over to supporting creationism when I knew he was lying or deceiving to do so. Lots of Darwinists base their arguments on known lies. Very little respect for truth among the spokesmen of Darwinism.

Whatever that carcass was, it was not a basking shark. That particular aspect of the series is a very tiny one. While the carcass is problematic, dinosaur-human interaction is now painfully obvious and the existence of mammals and humans found in rock layers labeled by Darwinists at over 100 million years old is an unavoidable death blow to Darwinism. One of several, actually.

Darwinism is a bit like Dracula. There never was an actual Dracula (although he is possibly modeled on Vlad the Impaler) but he proved to be an interesting movie character to Hollywood writers. Dracula and Dracula types have been thematic to dozens of movies, in fact probably hundreds. Vampires get killed by wooden stakes, silver weaponry, direct sunlight, having a cross forced upon them and yet they are back for another movie time after time.

Geology, Biology, Astronomy, Physics, Information, Statistics, you name the field and I will likely find information that kneecaps Darwinism with ease. In fact all those sciences have been called upon to present evidence for creation and against evolution. Known evidence that just rips evolution to shreds is avoided, hidden in museum basements, destroyed or hidden under a barrage of verbiage so that the untrained do not realize they have been snowed.

Jon W said...

"Since the so-called analysis was done by Darwinists who are among the most untrustworthy and unsavory of all of them, that bio lab analysis isn't worth two cents."

Do you even know who actually ran the analyses in question?

Not that it matters much. The Zuiyo-maru carcass was only one of many "plesiosaur-like" globsters that have been found over the last couple of centuries. Every single one was eventually identified as a badly decayed basking shark or related species of shark. In his masterwork In the Wake of the Sea-Serpent, Bernard Heuvelmans dealt with several of these cases in detail and described carefully how a rotting basking shark can take on a plesiosaur-like shape. Heuvelmans originally published his book in 1965 -- twelve years before the Zuiyo-maru case.

Then there's the fact that the original description of the Zuiyo-maru carcass said it had two pairs of flippers, front and rear. If Juby is now claiming a third pair of flippers, then he has a serious zoological problem: plesiosaurs were tetrapods, their flippers were their limbs, and (barring joined-twins and other monstrosities) no known tetrapod, living or extinct, has ever had more than two pairs of limbs. None. Not one.

But of course, you won't let any of that stop you either. Will you?

Jon W said...

Incidentally, here:

is an article from a creationist source, one that you've considered reliable and quoted from with approval in the past, which supports the conventional view that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a basking shark.

radar said...


For several years I also was among the creationists who believed it was a basking shark based largely on the evidence that an analysis had been done on the actual flesh of the carcass. But now I have discovered that the results of this analysis were withheld and only the announcement was made with no corroborative evidence. So now I am open to the idea that it was not a basking shark and may have been something else.

Interesting that you focus on that rather than the larger issues of other irrefutable findings that pretty well kill off evolution. Frankly the basking shark/mystery animal is a sidebar that is of no great significance. It is odd, though, that someone would claim to have analyzed this specimen but withheld the actual analysis from inspection? Until that changes I will abandon the basking shark hypothesis and consider the carcass an unresolved mystery that may or may not be applicable. Ian thinks it is. I am not sure.

radar said...

One more thing - must always fall on the side of surety when considering issues such as this particular carcass. They are careful to avoid anything that is not pretty certain. If Jon W was to read that site on a regular basis he would find that they make a great case for creation and utterly destroy evolution even while staying very careful and avoiding uncertain topics.

Since I am not an organization and free to have an opinion that will not be read by millions (just hundreds) I am not bound by such restraints. I would like to actually see someone prove that the material analyzed and presented as taken from the Zuiyo-maru carcass, I have no way of knowing whether that analysis is not just another piece of faked evidence, which some Darwinists are known to present. When I see talkorigins is involved, my suspicions are aroused.

Jon W said...

"Interesting that you focus on that rather than the larger issues of other irrefutable findings that pretty well kill off evolution."

No such findings actually exist. The claims of such findings are lies. But we've been down that road before, and you refuse to even consider any data that doesn't agree with what you've already decided is correct. I simply don't see any reason to waste my time trying again. Nor do I see any reason to waste my time watching endless propaganda videos composed by liars for the express intent of deceiving the viewer. I have more important things to do with my time.

I'll probably keep wandering by from time to time, just to see what lunacy you've been posting, and commenting wherever I see something that can be quickly and efficiently countered in a few words, like the ridiculous claim that the Zuiyo-maru carcass was a plesiosaur. Otherwise, I'm just not going to bother anymore. You aren't worth it.

radar said...

Jon, you are not quoting me accurately. Besides, using talkorigins to "counter" someone is like fencing with a wet noodle. Your counter will not stop the thrust at all.

As I said, the issue of that particular carcass is not relevant to the main part of the post, which you have no hope of countering, and is now possibly something other than a basking shark. But not a plesiosaur but rather another creature similar to one. I made it clear, as did Ian Juby, that it seemed to have been a four-finned, long-necked mammalian animal.