Really? You've found fresh dinosaur bones?
Until today I've only heard this from the unsung heroes in the Creation Science field, but a Page 3 article in USA Today bears comment.
It was believed that fossilization replaced all living tissue with inert minerals, until now. Protein traces were found in T. Rex dinosaur bones from Hell Creek, Montana. It was only 60 feet down in the rock, and the team found similar traces in a mastodon bone that they claimed was 160,000 years old.
Did anyone ever stop to wonder whether their dating methods may be quite a bit off? Instead of musing about how these bones could still contain organic material after millions of supposed years, why not give a bit of thought to the theory that these bones aren't that old after all?
This is just more confirmation to me that the bones are young, that it is possible that humans and dinosarurs lived together only a few thousand years ago. For more information on this theory, please visit www.creationworldview.org.
Interesting. I have a question: what ever happened to 'cave people?' You know....Australopithecus afarensis or Cro-Magnon man or some of the others? Where did they go? Thanks.
Reply to this
Well, there's a distinction to be made here. "Cave people" are merely people who live in caves. They don't have to be any less human than any person currently living. "Cave people" are not "ape people."
The main thing here is that evolutionists rearrange the evidence and then lie about it in attempts to prove their wild theory. http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c029.html
There are basically four categories of proof for human evolution:
1. Hoaxes.
2. Misrepresentations of evidence.
3. The bones of dead apes.
4. The bones of dead people.
What's that mean about what's in the ground? It's only the fossils of dead apes or the fossils of dead people. For example, the Neandertal people were discovered to have rickets or something which caused deformation in their bones. They were nothing but true humans and are mostly recognized as such today.
Artists' representations are not evidence. Even the best forensic reconstructionist will tell you that skulls tell you nothing about what kind of nose, ears, or hair was on a skull. What happens is that some evolutionist digs up a skull, assumes its from some pre-human, and an artist bolsters the scientist's religious doctrine.
For more information, see here: http://www.icr.org/article/823 and http://www.icr.org/article/20136.
Carrie
Reply to this
Thanks, Carrie. So, are you saying that the bones of beings that look like something between an ape and a human have been hoaxes? When Donald Johansen allegedly discovered Australopithecus afarensis, those bones really look real. Are you saying that he's a liar?
Reply to this
I don't know Johansen personally, of course. What I will say is that he may be prone to something that plagues us all from time to time, being able to fool himself. Since you brought him up specifically, let's talk for a moment about his work.
Evolutionary scientists like him are not objective; they're biased. I'm saying that a passionate, religious desire to prove evolution (and a pressing need to secure funding for further research) could possibly have affected Johanson’s interpretation of the bone fragments he found.
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v4i5f.htm
I'll be generous and say he's ignorant. The bones are real, undoubtedly, but his interpretation of their meaning is fully open for debate. Just because some bones are found together doesn't necessarily mean they belong together. And (as I heard someone say once) "if you find an animal in the dirt, you can't tell that it ever had any kids, and you can't tell what those kids looked like. All you know is that it once lived becaue it died."
Humans and apes are distinct kinds of creatures. Between animals and humans there is a great gulf, and never the twain have met. Evolution is a false religion, an untestable theory, and deserves to be examined -- but rejected.
Carrie
Reply to this
Hello again. I forgot to ask:
Why don't we see any of the apes that are found in the ground anymore? Why no more Australopithecus afarensis? Did they do something bad that made God kill them?
Reply to this
The name "Australopithecus" actually means "Southern Ape," and the "Afarensis" simply means they were found in Africa.
I think it's much more likely that Dr. Johansen found a now-extinct species of ape. Some modern-day apes walk upright for short distances, and there is much debate today even among evolutionary scientists as to how this creature got around.
If you don't think an agenda is being pressed here, check out the artist rendering on this page:
http://www.answers.com/topic/lucy
Remember, artists' renderings are not proof. Such things as ears, noses, arrangement of hair and coloring patterns cannot be determined from fossil evidence. It is wise to be skeptical, and work to make logical deductions based on what is actually dug up from the ground.
Oh, and as for what happened to these creatures? They obviously died. Does the phrase "great flood of Noah's day" mean anything to you?
Carrie
Reply to this
Thanks for the informative responses, Carrie. I have one last question: Why did God make human DNA so similar to cimp or ape DNA? If we are to believe the DNA theory, then human and chimp are 99% the same (see Carl Sagan;s work for more). Is this a hoax, too?
Also, evolution is not a religion nor is it the case against God.
Thanks! You have a nice blog going here!
Reply to this
Thanks for the compliments! I’ll deal with the second comment first.
I offer a quote from Theodosius Dobzansky (The American Biology Teacher, Volume 35, Number 3, March 1973, page 129), where he quotes Pierre Teilhard de Chardin: “Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts, a trajectory which all lines of thought must follow.”
Science involves observation, using one or more of our five senses to investigate the world in order to gain knowledge and you can repeat your observations. We can only observe what exists in the present, and no scientist was present over the millions of supposed years to observe evolution (goo to you by way of the zoo) taking place.
Evolution is a belief about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence that only exists in the present originated. Webster’s dictionary defines religion as “… cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.” Evolution certainly qualifies.
Certainly you don’t need to believe in young-earth creationism to believe in God, but in order to believe in no god (atheism) you have to believe in evolutionism. It’s one of the key doctrines of the anti-god movement. All you have to do is watch the hysteria whenever anyone suggests that we might teach theories of intelligent design in the government schools.
Which brings me to your first question ...
Now, I took the time to look up one article on the DNA comparisons between a human and a chimpanzee. Here are the facts:
1. The “primate” DNA code is approximately three billion base pairs of letters in sequence (3,000,000,000).
2. There are approximately 40 million (40,000,000) differences between the chimp’s DNA and the human.
3. All told, there is approximately a 4 percent difference between the two species, as far as the genetic code is concerned.
Now, the article took a leap of faith by saying, “three-quarters of the differences seem to be in non-functional parts of the genome, suggesting that a mere 1 percent variation makes all the difference.” I don’t know how they can say this when scientists don’t understand the function of 97% of the human genome.
The human genome is estimated to contain 20,000-25,000 genes, and genes comprise only about 2% of the human genome. The rest of the DNA consists of other codes, whose functions may include providing chromosomal structural integrity and regulating where, when, and in what quantity proteins are made. We just don't know yet.
Any way you look at it, human beings and chimpanzees (and all life for that matter) are extremely complex machines. Even the smallest known genome for a free-living organism (bacterium) contains about 600,000 DNA base pairs. These have to be arranged in a specific sequence for the organism to function. Is it really logical to believe that they were assembled purely by accident?
Here’s the real issue: The study of similar structures is called Homology. How many times have you seen illustrations of a bat’s wing, a whale’s flipper, a horse’s leg and a human arm with the bones labeled to show the similarity in structure? This DNA thing could be called “molecular homology,” and in fact it is.
Homology was initially a creationist argument which said that the existence of similar structures showed a common designer, not a common ancestry. The fact is that designed complex structures and systems do not happen by chance. They have to be engineered by someone. Usually many someones. Examples I could cite are cars, airplanes—even the Space Shuttle, which only has 2,506,450 parts.
There are volumes of information written about how to build the Space Shuttle, and the DNA code is similar. The information contained in our DNA would fill two hundred 500-page telephone directories. For the same reason that the volumes of technical data on the Space Shuttle could not have came into existence by accident, I have to believe in a Designer for life.
Bottom line: Why did God make humans and apes so similar in their DNA? Because He had a good design working, and He applied it in many awesome variations. He is worthy of all glory, honor, and praise for being so awesome!
Reply to this