Search This Blog

Wednesday, November 25, 2015

More Feathered Dinosaur Follies

Advocates of bird-to-dinosaur evolution got the bit between their teeth and are running wild. Whenever there's something that can be even remotely seen as a "feather" it trumpet as evidence of said evolution. Not only are they arguing from their presuppositions (an all too common occurrence), they are conducting sloppy science.

Another flap about feathers on a dinosaur fossils fails when adequate evidence is considered.
Made from images found at Clker
A few years ago, markings on an ostrich-like fossil had a kinda maybe sorta resemblance to feather filaments. A newer study supposedly affirms the previous study In both cases, the mad runaways did not examine the evidence thoroughly or examine other possibilities. One of those is that the keratin structure resembles feather filaments, but the same kind of keratin structure is also found in reptiles and other critters, including humans. Another bit of sloppy science is that this alleged transitional form is the wrong age, since actual birds appear earlier in the fossil record according to their own reckoning. Third, there is skin and other soft tissues in the fossil. These owlhoots really need to do their homework before making announcements. 

What we really have is a dinosaur that is just what it was created to be: a dinosaur without feathers. Filaments are not feathers! We also have no evidence for evolution, old son.
Fuzz on an Ornithomimus fossil found in 2009 supposedly fluffs out the feathery picture of this dinosaur paleontologists commonly call the “ostrich mimic.” Building on a previous claim that Ornithomimus had feathered ostrich-like wings, the latest research demonstrates that its so-called feathers were reduced to fibrous wisps on most of the body and that the hind legs were virtually bare.

The latest study, published in an October 2015 issue of Cretaceous Research, builds on assertions in another study from a few year’s ago. As we discussed in “Feathered Dinosaurs Found in Canada?,” Darla Zelenitsky’s team found some straight markings on another Ornithomimus fossil’s front leg bones. Measuring up to a quarter of an inch long, her team thought the lines were what the insertion points of shafted feather quills would look like if fossilized. Therefore, they interpreted these as proof that Ornithomimus had abundant wing feathers. When we say “builds on” we mean that quite literally, for the fossil studied by van der Reest’s team had no preserved front limbs nor any bones with the markings like those described in Zelenitsky’s specimen. Therefore, they include photographs of Zelenitsky’s fossil in their study. This helps them complete the picture they paint of a very ostrich-like dinosaur strutting about with plumaceous wings, downy body, and naked legs.
To read the rest and see some interesting images, click on "Ostrich-Mimic' Is an Un-Feathered Dinosaur". Another flap about feathers on a dinosaur fossils fails when adequate evidence is considered.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

The Changing Face of the Early Man Timeline

Seems like the established order of when certain early humans appeared changes faster than Pony Express relay riders. Somebody finds bones, teeth, artifacts, and whatnot, and things get rearranged. Repeatedly. For instance, we get the Neanderthals out of "order" repeatedly because of newer findings (the randy rascals bred with "modern" humans in a variety of places, and their DNA is fully human). Other things that were considered human were reassigned as fully human, fully ape, or just plain wrong.

The human evolution timeline keeps changing rapidly. Another find causes a new shuffle of who goes where in the fantasy of evolution.
Image credit: "Smile" by rikvrijman / openclipart
There's been another misdeal. Everyone give back your cards...yes, even the one you stuck up your sleeve, we all saw you...and there's going to be a new shuffle and deal. Teeth were found in China that are bothering paleoanthropologists. Let's hope they don't have another Nebraska Man fiasco on their hands. Know why this silliness happens? Because much-to-museum-curator evolution is fantasy, and science supports special creation, that's why.
Is the truth in the teeth? Modern-looking human teeth in a Chinese cave create improbable migration patterns and dates.

The old story: modern humans emerged out of Africa 40,000 years ago and conquered the Neanderthals.

The new story: modern humans migrated to south China 80,000 to 120,000 years ago, but not into north China; that’s where the simpletons hung out. Then, 40,000 to 80,000 years later, the moderns decided to go west into Europe after the Neanderthals started committing collective suicide or starved, unable to support themselves as they had for up to half a million years. The moderns married some of the Neanderthals and had kids that became us, but shoved the others out and moved into their caves. They didn’t think about civilization for another 30,000 years but made some nice art, some of it as good as Picasso. Does this make any sense?
To find out what evolutionists have to believe, even if it doesn't make sense, click on "Chinese Teeth Upset Early Man Timeline".

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Ecology and Humanity's Effects

Nobody can pretend that people have not been harmful to the environment. But from an evolutionary standpoint, so what? We're at the top of the pile, doing that "survival of the fittest" thing, so we're doing what seems right in our own eyes. Logically, an evolutionist has no right to complain, no consistent standard on which to base his complaints.

Nobody can pretend that people have not been harmful to the environment. But from an evolutionary standpoint, so what?
Image by Clarita / morgueFile
Let's saddle up an analogy for a romp around the corral, shall we? Since so many people are so hell-bent on finding something to be offended about, I'm going to make up a minority group and call them the carbonites, since we're all carbon-based life forms according to V'ger. Well, the carbonites have a high crime rate. The steal, murder, use illegal drugs, plagiarize authors, troll the Web, and do all sorts of nasty things. Stupid, too. But there are good carbonites as well, church-going, charity-giving, helpful, hardworking, intelligent. Well hey, you can't condemn the entire ethnic group because of the actions of a few. Yet, there are some environmentalists who condemn all of humanity because of the actions of others, and ignore those who are doing good things for the environment.

Atheists and evolutionists do not have a consistent foundation for their worldviews, so when they say something is "wrong", they are appealing to a higher standard: God the Creator. That's where we're coming from. We believe in being good stewards of Earth as is taught in the Bible.
By driving some animals extinct, are humans damaging the whole planet? Who will be the judge?

Several news articles recently have worried about the harm people are doing to animal species. A look through history, though, shows that humans have always done this. Roman emperors rounded up African wild animals for the arenas. It’s possible that humans were largely responsible for the disappearance of large mammals in North America. In our time, poachers are driving elephants and rhinos extinct unless they can be stopped. But if humans are products of evolution, who is to say these are evil practices?

Certainly many humans are righteously concerned about endangered species, and are investing their lives in saving them. Conservationists have been shot by poachers. If a tiny percentage are killing elephants, can you fault the whole population?
Instead of trashing this article, you can read the rest by clicking on "Humans Behaving Badly Ecologically".

Wednesday, November 04, 2015

Phosphates and Uniformitarian Assumptions

Phosphates (natural compounds containing phosphorus) are used in detergents, industry, and agriculture. Some of it comes from guano, and there's money in it, as referenced in the Ian Fleming novel Dr. No, and in Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls (Ventura said to the bad guy, "You want that dookie so bad you can taste it!") Who would've cognated that bird and bat poo could be not only useful, but valuable?

Naturalistic uniformitarian assumptions about the accumulation of nitrates are used to "refute" the biblical timeline. The assumptions are based on inaccurate and incomplete science.
Nauru map, CIA World Factbook
My sources in the Central Intelligence Agency informed me (all right, I looked it up online in the World Factbook) that the tiny island of Nauru is the world's smallest independent republic in the United Nations. Not much going for it, not even tourism, but it does have phosphates. Uniformitarian assumptions are that the deposition takes millions of years, so the biblical timeline from the Genesis Flood must be wrong. However, people making such assumptions are neglecting the fact the bird droppings are not the only source of nitrates.
Today’s feedback is from G.S. from Australia who said:
I have just been challenged by an atheist/evolutionist who claims that the large phosphate deposits in places like Nauru could not have come about in thousands of years—but only in millions of years. Are you aware of any articles or information which might be relevant?
CMI geologist Dr Tas Walker responded:
To see Dr. Walker's reply and analysis, drop in on "The phosphate deposits on Nauru, western Pacific Ocean".