Saturday, August 22, 2015

Understanding the abomination of desolations..

Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?
         Desolation means to lay waste. The sanctuary also known as the Temple of Jerusalem is to be wasted.  This appears to have been fulfilled by Antiochus Epiphanes when he took over the temple and sacrificed a hog on the altar.

in the first year of his reign I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, whereof the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah the prophet, that he would accomplish seventy years in the desolations of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem was empty and desolate during the 70years of captivity.

17 Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake 18 O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies.
   The desolation of the temple seems to be as preserving of God's honor because Israel Had become such a defiled people. This reflects on the fact that the people at the time were in need of revival as their hearts had become desolate in Daniels eyes.

And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself: and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

  As the word desolation has been used regarding Israel the entire time. This appears to be the destruction of the temple in 72 ad.  The temple has been desolate since awaiting the 70th week

Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east wind: he daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil is carried into Egypt.

Egypt shall be a desolation, and Edom shall be a desolate wilderness, for the violence against the children of Judah, because they have shed innocent blood in their land.

For the statutes of Omri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab, and ye walk in their counsels; that I should make thee a desolation, and the inhabitants thereof an hissing: therefore ye shall bear the reproach of my people.

Therefore their goods shall become a booty, and their houses a desolation: they shall also build houses, but not inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, but not drink the wine thereof.

That day is a day of wrath, a day of trouble and distress, a day of wasteness and desolation, a day of darkness and gloominess, a day of clouds and thick darkness,

For Gaza shall be forsaken, and Ashkelon a desolation: they shall drive out Ashdod at the noon day, and Ekron shall be rooted up.

Therefore as I live, saith the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, Surely Moab shall be as Sodom, and the children of Ammon as Gomorrah, even the breeding of nettles, and saltpits, and a perpetual desolation: the residue of my people shall spoil them, and the remnant of my people shall possess them.

And he will stretch out his hand against the north, and destroy Assyria; and will make Nineveh a desolation, and dry like a wilderness.

And flocks shall lie down in the midst of her, all the beasts of the nations: both the cormorant and the bittern shall lodge in the upper lintels of it; their voice shall sing in the windows; desolation shall be in the thresholds: for he shall uncover the cedar work.

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not, (let him that readeth understand,) then let them that be in Judæa flee to the mountains:

And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh.

Friday, August 14, 2015

The hidden Debate of Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism

    These days the creation evolution debate has been stifled by many evolutionists.  They simply do not want to engage in legitimate debates with Creationists  they can only argue in safe places like the class room or in fast chatting social media with many of their ilk ready to gang up on the competition. Well a subject that magnifies the situation is helio-centricity vs. Geo-centricity. You would think I should be the one unwilling to discuss the issue out of fear and embarrassment.   But as I kept studying the issue it was just never refuted, while the modern cosmology is actually crumbling on it's own. So I happened upon a facebook user who has 4 degrees in physics and mathematics.  We had debated on facebook several times And I felt confident in those exchanges.  I have wanted to debate the issue.  I had one challenger last year but they backed out. So I wanted to get this person to do the debate with me.  They publicly declined.  I then boasted to others how I liked defeating this character. which started to draw them. They then wanted to join a christian creationist group which I declined becauseit was not a debate group of christians vs. non-believers and this character is atheist.  Yet we had a conversation.   Then we started debating.  After a while he put another facebook user in the conversation without asking my permission. I feel that this breach allowed me to record the conversation in public because it was no longer private.  So I started recording after that point. This convo was a week or 2 long. After the the conclusion I decided not to surprise them but go ahead and seek their permission.  After I asked they bragged that they had one the exchange.  Then they suddenly asserted that they would not give permission for the conversation to be public.  I would have allowed alterations in case they need to change spelling grammar, if they want ed to reference something more clear and a couple statements etc.  Yet they did not want their dialogue to be public.  But I want to publish my dialogue.  So I am! :)
I do briefly paraphrase the arguments given to me.  the empty comments are usually not throwing a new argument as far as I see it.  I also leave the references that they made because they are sighting someone else s work.

The person with a background in physics is an expert in PHYSICS MATH and SCIENCE.  We will call them PMS for short.  The other user is the 2nd Person.  We will call them PP.

ME:demonstrate it. 
ME:honestly I was not so sure about geocentricity until I was destroying your arguments so easily.

   Me:  The aether of the universe is heavier than the mass of the sun. But more importantly you are assuming that the universe is only operating with gravitational force. The matter of the universe is mostly plasma. Plasma operates with electromagnetic force. Electromagnetic energy is 10 to the 36 power greater than gravity. So for instance the sun is, in your cosmology is moving by gravity 1.4 million miles a day around the Milky Way. In my cosmology it is moving by a force 10 to the 36th power greater around the earth coast with the gravitational and electromagnetic force of the constellations. Of course I doubt you have studied my research no matter how often I linked it to you. I just want to know are you so ignorant that after years of arguing with regular geo centrist you never studied enough to know, that they are not arguing that the earth is moving the sun?       


Me:We have proved the existence of aether with 4 experiments you have proved dark matter with nothing! You spent thousands of dollars and you still are not scientific.


ME: This is the problem I have already explained the concept of aether. You did not read it or remember it when referenced. "What of the heaven?
with hints from the rest of the chapter, this is neither the sky nor our current understanding of the cosmos. This would be the substance articulated by the Greeks and early scientists known as the ether.
"According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity." wikipedia" Now it is your turn, define dark matter. Then identify the distinctions between dark matter and Aether. Sense Einstein did not invent the concept of dark matter explain the differences between the void and dark matter and if that would effect Michelson's research

Alright while we wait on those previous questions. I will ask another. What do you do with the sloan scale? The concentric shells of galaxies around us are curved around us. BBT would assume everything is relatively the same. But if we went to the other galaxies it appears that the galaxies would not point to the other location but to point towards the milky way. How do you respond to the findings?
22 hours ago

{a major argument brought for is that maxwell's equations do not require an aether}

ME:I assume you accept my definition of aether. Please define spacetime. Also make distinctions between it, aether, dark matter and what disproved the existence of aether, since aether was the original understanding of space.
{Another major argument brought up was that the michelson-morrely experiment brought up a null result and as a result there is no such thing as aether.}

Me:  Actually the "null result" was only null with the presuppositions that light is an unchanging constant and that Helio-centrism is true. I contend neither.  There was indeed an either drag found, though it was not adequate for the assumption of earth spinning around the sun. However, if I am arguing that the earth is not spinning around the sun then this repeated experiment is backing me up.

"In that year, Dayton Miller demonstrated the fact that even though the duo's experiment had not specifically found the expected range of interference patterns, they had found an interesting little noticed effect. Miller then went on to suggest that Michelson Morley had found an experimental sine wave like set of data that correlated well with the predicted pattern of data. He also described how thermal and directional assumptions inherent in the experimental arrangement may have impacted badly on the fringe interference data. Thus, the test may have been performed in an imperfectly conceived experimental setup and with a built in mathematical bias against the detection of an appropriate outcome.  Thus, in the future the aether theory in some form or another may still be sustainable as a foundational theory of physics." pg3

Now in later experiments like the sagnac experiment and the michelson Gale experiment we see an Aether drag. Thus building a case for geo-centricity. The scientist themselves were not geo-centrist thus proving the power of this evidence. But we have to have clarity. How does the nature of vacuum, the nature of dark matter, and the nature of spacetime differ with the Aether?


Me:  Of course not, but you can't get away from that either/ether  ;)
Miller worked on increasingly larger interferometers, culminating in one with a 32 m (effective) arm length that he tried at various sites including on top of a mountain at the Mount Wilson observatory. To avoid the possibility of the aether wind being blocked by solid walls, his mountaintop observations used a special shed with thin walls, mainly of canvas. From noisy, irregular data, he consistently extracted a small positive signal that varied with each rotation of the device, with the sidereal day, and on a yearly basis. His measurements in the 1920s amounted to approximately 10 km/s instead of the nearly 30 km/s expected from the Earth's orbital motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial entrainment or aether dragging, though he did not attempt a detailed explanation."
  Thirring, Hans (1926). "Prof. Miller's Ether Drift Experiments". Nature 118 (2959): 81–82. Bibcode:1926Natur.118...81T. doi:10.1038/118081c0
If 10 kilometers per second is nothing then you better start running or your nothing! LOL  But seriously, the experiment as developed by Dayton Miller shows the ether drag is a real thing, only it contradicts heliocentricity.

But I must plead with you again that we must find clarity as to the nature of Aether vs. dark matter vs. space-time.  After all physics doesn't stop at the moon.

Also I don't want to leave the topic of the Copernican principle abandoned. based upon the evidence of galaxies in concentric shells around us How can there be no preferred locations when all other observed locations are contorted towards us?

PMS: {I am warned not to commit a guish gallup}

[I never heard of that term and had to look it up.  It is a made up fallacy, slamming Dr. Duane Guish
 for dominating evolutionists with His cumulative cases.  They then claim it to be a barrage of half truths]

ME:"the claim of geocentrist is false" because the Michelson Morrely experiment as you have clearly stated has always had the same result. And as shown has always revealed an aether drag of as high as 10kilometers per second which defies your contention of helio centricity and vindicates my view over and over?"


Me:We have public record to the contrary.  Thirring, Hans (1926). "Prof. Miller's Ether Drift Experiments". Nature 118 (2959): 81–82. Bibcode:1926Natur.118...81T. doi:10.1038/118081c0
wikipedia cited it.

{uses these links to to argue that there was a null result}

Me: It's not my position that these conclusions are correct. They wanted to have aether physics with heliocentricity
I argue for aether physics with Geocentricity. (among other aspects of New Years cosmology)
All these examples do is try to adjust the scale of the measurement to be estimated zero in your standard.
You can get a satelite far enough away to look like a little blue dot.  But those of us on earth see the earth in at least 50% of our optics over the course of lifetime.
You are hanging on to a "Bait-n-switch" whereby the small scale of either giving an estimated zero is all of the sudden an absolute zero.  But a current that goes as high as 10 kilometers a second is not absolute nothing.  It is just nothing in terms of trying to get the earth to rotate around the sun.  It is my contenetion that the earth is not rotating around the sun.  You have placed your confidence in the experiments so You can't go back on your word.  We have measured an aether that is incompatible with helicentrism and because  we measured an aether at all and repeatedly found it in a few oter experiments the data is showing us geo centrism.  This works with greater effect as we consider the cosmos.  Of course that begs the question which I keep asking of you.  What is the distinction between Aether and Dark matter and Space-Time in terms of substance?


Me: Yes and every experiment shown has an aether drag. Why have you been dodging my question about dark matter and aether and Space time? I asked this question first and you have failed to address it.

PMS: { states aether is not required}

Me: required for what?
PMS: {referring to physics}

Me: If that were true you wouldn't dodge my question for simple definitions.   


ME:  I already defined Aether previously in our conversation. here it is a second time. ""According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity." wikipedia" /a-scientific-exposition-of-literal.html I then told you that I must assume you hold the same definition. But you never responded. So you do you want to argue another definition? Will you ever define any of the other terms so that we can have a meaningful dialogue?


Me: Perhaps for the first time, you should give me your definitions then.


ME: If you make the definition, then why would you set up a false definition to defeat yourself?  All I could do is point out contradictions. But would you really want to have contradictions in your cosmology anyway? 

Me: Well, was your statement about aether a definition? I can't evaluate things that are not defined.
 ME:This is because Aether was a concept for an ancient category. much like air. They understood aether as a substance. They knew it wasn't the air itself and it was the substance of space between celestial bodies.

Me:  Much like air is thought to be needed. There was no "dark matter" or "space time" that is the back drop to scientific dialogue. In order to deny Aether you have to be careful to define what you have denied. Because you are creating new terms which have to prove that they exist by being different than aether and yet fulfilling the other functions. 
Me:So let me ask you... is the copernican principle a claim you assume by faith or is it a fact you have ascertained?
   1 day later
Do you argue that the Copernican principle is an observed fact or is it an assumption you prefer?                                                                                                                                    
1 day later..
Me:You know as you referred to Maxwell's equations it reminds me of a previous conversation we had and I asked you if numbers are real. Numbers are mental abstractions, they are symbols of reality.  But you have to have observations in order for the numbers to bear any reality.
This also brings up the fact that you have yet to define dark matter, space time, and vacuum.
Is there any observation experimental data to prove the existence of dark matter?  If there is not, then could not dark matter be simply another word for Aether?  In James Maxwell's day Aether was the working concept,  but there was no discussion of dark matter. 
 2 days later
 Me:If we are talking about  the Copernican principle saying the earth has no preferred position in space, we have to look deeper into nature.
The fact that we are having this conversation stems from the fact that life has come to earth.
We have yet to find this life on other planets or in other galaxies.
There are many conditions that have to be met in order for that to be possible.
Our planet must be solid.
Our planet must have liquid water
Our planet must have air
Our planet must have the right size to balance the water and earth and the right gravity
Our planet must  have plants and organisms which conduct photosynthesis,
Our planet must have an ecosystem available.
We must have a sun at a appropriate distance to warm our earth
It must also have appropriate motion for the earth to warm on both sides.
We must have a moon at an appropriate distance to churn the seas.
Our sun and moon are in unique positions.
They are a perfect shape and distance to not only accomplish these things but they are in alignment as we see from the solar eclipse every couple years.  This alignment was necessary as these bodies were then used to determine many scales of time by which we were able to move onto developing technology.

We also need protection from gigantic celestial bodies.  This is provided to us by the gas giant planets.

Not too mention the many pressure and radioactive areas which could also destroy life.

Obviously with all these conditions we are in a unique place.  But if our position is unique, it breaks the Copernican principle and demands that we search for a center of space and consider the earth as a candidate. At which point we see the universe spin around us and must then search for a way to disprove that by observation. 


     2 days later
Me: I guess we will have to agree to disagree


{they both were quite confident of their victory even though they do not want anyone to see this conversation}

Monday, August 10, 2015

From Ark to Zoo: A biblical view of zoology

A matter of life and death
"What a difference!  In evolutionary thinking. time, chance struggle and death produce "new and improved" forms of life.  In biblical thinking, chance and struggle produce disease, decline and death.  Evolution begins with dead things; living things living things -including us- are temporary intruders in the universe, and when the sun burns out, death wins at last.  The bible begins with the life of God; death is a temporary intruder and eternal life wins at christ return." pg14 Gary Parker Creation Facts of Life
   Dr. Parker has all the credentials as a former evolutionary biologist with scores of academic awards including a "science faculty fellowship"   from the National Science Foundation. The common charge of not understanding evolution can not be taken seriously against this fellow who made a living indoctrinating college students into it,  Yet he is now a Young Earth Christian Creationist.  Core to Parker's shift in worldview was the principle's of life and death.
John 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."
   Many of the false religions of Satan have way of glamorizing death.  In the religion of evolution, death is seen as a way of salvation for the world system.  Death is a purification of populations of species etc.
But reality is on the side of the Biblical worldview.  Funerals are not the place for celebrating.  Some in modern times have tried to make it so.  But in reality, death is sad and people will always mourn it. to plan and make decisions about (something that is being built or created) : to create the plans, drawings, etc., that show how (something) will be made
: to plan and make (something) for a specific use or purpose
: to think of (something, such as a plan) : to plan (something) in your mind"
Abiogenis: evolution of a theory demoted to a hypothesis.

 "from 1980 on NASA scientist have shown that the primitive earth never had any methane, ammonia or hydrogen to amount to anything." he said "Instead, it was composed of water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen---and you absolutely cannot get the same experimental results with that mixture.  It just won't work.  More recent experiments have confirmed this to be the case."Walter L. Bradley

There are even atheist who are beginning to doubt the neo-darwinian paradigm!
“…I believe there are independent empirical reasons to be skeptical about the truth of reductionism in biology. Physico-chemical reductionism in biology is the orthodox view, and any resistance to it is regarded as not only scientifically but politically incorrect. But for a long time I have the materialist account of how we and our fellow organisms came to exist hard to believe, including the standard version of how the evolutionary process works. The more details we learn about the chemical basis of life and the intricacy of the genetic code, the more unbelievable the standard historical account becomes. This is just the opinion of a layman who reads widely in the literature that explains contemporary science to the nonspecialist. Perhaps that literature presents the situation with a simplicity and confidence that does not reflect the most sophisticated scientific thought in those areas. But it seems to me that, as it is usually presented, the current orthodoxy about the cosmic order is the product of governing assumptions that are unsupported, and that it flies in the face of common sense."
Abiogensis was a natural aspect of the evolutionary theory
"Abiogenesis, the rise of life from non-living molecules is obviously possible because it happened."
However, spontaneous generation of life from non-life was dead in the water and has been dead for over a century!
" Louis Pasteur (/ˈli pæˈstɜr/, French: [lwi pastœʁ]; December 27, 1822 – September 28, 1895) was a French chemist and microbiologist renowned for his discoveries of the principles of vaccination, microbial fermentation and pasteurization. He is remembered for his remarkable breakthroughs in the causes and preventions of diseases, and his discoveries have saved countless lives ever since. He reduced mortality from puerperal fever, and created the first vaccines for rabies and anthrax. His medical discoveries provided direct support for the germ theory of disease and its application in clinical medicine. He is best known to the general public for his invention of the technique of treating milk and wine to stop bacterial contamination, a process now called pasteurization. He is regarded as one of the three main founders of bacteriology, together with Ferdinand Cohn and Robert Koch, and is popularly known as the "father of microbiology".[3][4][5]
Pasteur was responsible for crushing the doctrine of spontaneous generation. He performed experiments that showed that without contamination, microorganisms could not develop. Under the auspices of the French Academy of Sciences, he demonstrated that in sterilized and sealed flasks nothing ever developed, and in sterilized but open flasks microorganisms could grow. This experiment won him the Alhumbert Prize of the academy.[6]"

The assumption of macro-evolution is in the Uniformitarian hypothesis.  The idea that everything is in a closed system propels this speculation. However, if there is a break in the closed system then there can be others.  If we need a miracle to postulate life,  Why not several miracles?  We need God to make a cell; why not have God make animals and other species? God is omnipotent so once we invoke Him, then He is a regular factor.  Some have invoke aliens instead. But the aliens have godlike power to begin with just by crossing such massive distances.  Plus we would have to figure out how they came into existence.
Recent evolutionary mathematicians have argued the possibility of RNA forming and thus proving abiogenesis.   "I've argued here that RNA has been produced in a laboratory and that evidence exists that RNA might have formed in the early earth environment. This is not proof. Abiogenesis, as a field of scientific inquiry, is still in its infancy. It is not very far down the road of an accepted theory."
Let us consider some of the difficulties:
  1. First, as we have seen, it is not even clear that the primitive Earth would have generated and maintained organic molecules. All that we can say is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations.
  2. Second, high-energy precursors of purines and pyrimidines had to be produced in a sufficiently concentrated form (for example at least 0.01 M HCN).
  3. Third, the conditions must now have been right for reactions to give perceptible yields of at least two bases that could pair with each other.
  4. Fourth, these bases must then have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made, and the solutions must have been sufficiently concentrated.
  5. Fifth, in some other location a formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M must have built up.
  6. Sixth, this accumulated formaldehyde had to oligomerise to sugars.
  7. Seventh, somehow the sugars must have been separated and resolved, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose.
  8. Eighth, bases and sugars must now have come together.
  9. Ninth, they must have been induced to react to make nucleosides. (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution: purine nucleosides have been made by dry-phase synthesis, but not even this method has been successful for condensing pyrimidine bases and ribose to give nucleosides (Orgel & Lohrmann, 1974).)
  10. Tenth, whatever the mode of joining base and sugar it had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar. This junction will fix the pentose sugar as either the alpha or beta-anomer of either the furanose or pyranose forms (see page 29). For nucleic acids it has to be the beta-furanose. (In the dry-phase purine nucleoside syntheses referred to above, all four of these isomers were present with never more than 8 % of the correct structure.)
  11. Eleventh, phosphate must have been, or must now come to have been, present at reasonable concentrations. (The concentrations in the oceans would have been very low, so we must think about special situations—evaporating lagoons and such things (Ponnamperuma, 1978).)
  12. Twelfth, the phosphate must be activated in some way—for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate—so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible.
  13. Thirteenth, to make standard nucleotides only the 5′hydroxyl of the ribose should be phosphorylated. (In solid-state reactions with urea and inorganic phosphates as a phosphorylating agent, this was the dominant species to begin with (Lohrmann & Orgel, 1971). Longer heating gave the nucleoside cyclic 2′,3′-phosphate as the major product although various dinucleotide derivatives and nucleoside polyphosphates are also formed (Osterberg, Orgel & Lohrmann. 1973).)
  14. Fourteenth, if not already activated—for example as the cyclic 2′,3′-phosphate—the nucleotides must now be activated (for example with polyphosphate; Lohrmann, 1976) and a reasonably pure solution of these species created of reasonable concentration. Alternatively, a suitable coupling agent must now have been fed into the system.
  15. Fifteenth, the activated nucleotides (or the nucleotides with coupling agent) must now have polymerised. Initially this must have happened without a pre-existing polynucleotide template (this has proved very difficult to simulate (Orgel & Lohrmann. 1974)); but more important, it must have come to take place on pre-existing polynucleotides if the key function of transmitting information to daughter molecules was to be achieved by abiotic means. This has proved difficult too. Orgel & Lohrmann give three main classes of problem:
    • While it has been shown that adenosine derivatives form stable helical structures with poly(U)—they are in fact triple helixes—and while this enhances the condensation of adenylic acid with either adenosine or another adenylic acid—mainly to di(A) stable helical structures were not formed when either poly (A) or poly(G) were used as templates.
    • It was difficult to find a suitable means of making the internucleotide bonds. Specially designed water-soluble carbodiimides were used in the experiments described above, but the obvious pre-activated nucleotides—ATP or cyclic 2′,3′-phosphates—were unsatisfactory. Nucleoside 5′-phosphorimidazolides, for example were more successful, but these now involve further steps and a supply of imidazole, for their synthesis (Lohrmann & Orgel, 1978).
    • Internucleotide bonds formed on a template are usually a mixture of 2′-5′ and the normal 3′-5′ types. Often the 2′-5′ bonds predominate although it has been found that Zn2+, as well as acting as an efficient catalyst for the template-directed oligomerisation of guanosine 5′-phosphorimidazolide also leads to a preference for the 3′-5′ bonds (Lohrmann, Bridson & Orgel, 1980).
  16. Sixteenth, the physical and chemical environment must at all times have been suitable—for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations.
  17. Seventeenth, all reactions must have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight; that is, not only away from its direct, highly destructive effects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicals produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals.
  18. Eighteenth, unlike polypeptides, where you can easily imagine functions for imprecisely made products (for capsules, ionexchange materials, etc.), a genetic material must work rather well to be any use at all—otherwise it will quickly let slip any information that it has managed to accumulate.
  19. Nineteenth, what is required here is not some wild one-off freak of an event: it is not true to say ‘it only had to happen once’. A whole set-up had to be maintained for perhaps millions of years: a reliable means of production of activated nucleotides at the least."

step 2!:
There are no species of 2 celled animals.  If we have formed from 1 celled organisms then wouldn't there have been a 2 celled species?
"Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2,3,4, or 5, cells. Known forms of life with 6-20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion.  If macro evolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2-20 cells -filling the gap between and many celled organisms."Dr. Walt Brown In the beginning compelling evidence for creation and the flood pg.10

"colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single celled life and multicelled life.  The degree of cedlular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast.  For a further discussion, see Libbie Henreitta Hyman, The Invertebrates protozoa through Ctenophora Vol.1 (New York: Mcgraw-Hill, 1940) pp. 248-255."  pg 60

Genetic entropy:
Over each generation small mutations loose genetic information.  Even given the most liberal assumptions cells loose much  more DNA than they could ever acquire.  Given millions of years to cycle life would  fall apart instead of advance.

" Modern genomics provides the ability to screen the DNA of a wide variety of organisms to scrutinize broken metabolic pathways. This wealth of data has revealed wide-spread genetic entropy in human and other genomes. Loss of the vitamin C pathway due to deletions in the GULO (L-gulonolactone oxidase) gene has been detected in humans, apes, guinea pigs, bats, mice, rats, pigs, and passerine birds. Contrary to the popularized claims of some evolutionists and neo-creationists, patterns of GULO degradation are taxonomically restricted and fail to support macroevolution. Current research and data reported here show that multiple GULO exon losses in human, chimpanzee, and gorilla occurred independently in each taxon and are associated with regions containing a wide variety of transposable element fragments. Thus, they are another example of sequence deletions occurring via unequal recombination associated with transposable element repeats. The 28,800 base human GULO region is only 84% and 87% identical compared to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. The 13,000 bases preceding the human GULO gene, which corresponds to the putative area of loss for at least two major exons, is only 68% and 73% identical to chimpanzee and gorilla, respectively. These DNA similarities are inconsistent with predictions of the common ancestry paradigm. Further, gorilla is considerably more similar to human in this region than chimpanzee—negating the inferred order of phylogeny. Taxonomically restricted gene degradation events are emerging as a common theme associated with genetic entropy and systematic discontinuity, not macroevolution."
"Two recent research studies performed by secular scientists support genetic entropy. Their data were based on rare single-nucleotide variation observed in the protein-coding regions of the human genome. Over 80% of this variation was associated with genetic entropy exhibited by heritable diseases.3-7 Because protein-coding regions are less tolerant of mutation than other parts of the genome, these regions give more reliable historical genetic information."

No junk in the DNA trunk!
Evolutionist have been known to argue for junk DNA.  DNA which is genetically useless developing in micro evolution."The proportion of coding versus noncoding DNA varies significantly between species. In the human genome for example, almost all (98%) of the DNA is noncoding, while in bacteria, only 2% of the genetic material does not code for anything."
"Junk. Barren. Non-functioning. Dark matter. That’s how scientists had described the 98% of human genome that lies between our 21,000 genes, ever since our DNA was first sequenced about a decade ago. The disappointment in those descriptors was intentional and palpable.
It had been believed that the human genome — the underpinnings of the blueprint for the talking, empire-building, socially evolved species that we are — would be stuffed with sophisticated genes, coding for critical proteins of unparalleled complexity. But when all was said and done, and the Human Genome Project finally determined the entire sequence of our DNA in 2001, researchers found that the 3 billion base pairs that comprised our mere 21,000 genes made up a paltry 2% of the entire genome. The rest, geneticists acknowledged with unconcealed embarrassment, was an apparent biological wasteland.
But it turns out they were wrong. In an impressive series of more than 30 papers published in several journals, including Nature, Genome Research, Genome Biology, Science and Cell, scientists now report that these vast stretches of seeming “junk” DNA are actually the seat of crucial gene-controlling activity — changes that contribute to hundreds of common diseases. The new data come from the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements project, or ENCODE, a $123 million endeavor begun by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) in 2003, which includes 442 scientists in 32 labs around the world.
(MORE: Decoding Cancer: Scientists Release 520 Tumor Genomes from Pediatric Patients)
ENCODE has revealed that some 80% of the human genome is biochemically active. “What is remarkable is how much of [the genome] is doing at least something. It has changed my perception of the genome,” says Ewan Birney, ENCODE’s lead analysis coordinator from the European Bioinformatics Institute.
Rather than being inert, the portions of DNA that do not code for genes contain about 4 million so-called gene switches, transcription factors that control when our genes turn on and off and how much protein they make, not only affecting all the cells and organs in our body, but doing so at different points in our lifetime. Somewhere amidst that 80% of DNA, for example, lie the instructions that coax an uncommitted cell in a growing embryo to form a brain neuron, or direct a cell in the pancreas to churn out insulin after a meal, or guide a skin cell to bud off and replace a predecessor that has sloughed off.
“What we learned from ENCODE is how complicated the human genome is, and the incredible choreography that is going on with the immense number of switches that are choreographing how genes are used,” Eric Green, director of NHGRI, told reporters during a teleconference discussing the findings. “We are starting to answer fundamental questions like what are the working parts of the human genome, the parts list of the human genome and what those parts do.”

Intelligent design
SCIENTISTS STORE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION ON DNA THROUGH THE PROCESS OF BLIND CHANCE (Friday Church News Notes, December 19, 2014,,, 866-295-4143) - Two scientists have successfully stored 700 terabytes of data on DNA, including a copy of a multimedia book, breaking the previous record by a thousand times. George Church and Sriram Kosuri of the Wyss Institute at the Harvard Medical School stored this massive amount of information on about one gram of DNA (“Harvard cracks DNA storage,” Extreme Tech, Aug. 17, 2012). The stored information is equivalent to 233 3TB hard drives. As a test, the scientists made 70 billion copies of the DNA containing the information. They can foresee the day when “the entirety of human knowledge--every book, uttered word, and funny cat video--can be stored in a few hundred kilos of DNA.” Now, let us address the title of this report: “Scientists Store Massive Amounts of Information on DNA through the Process of Blind Chance.

So intelligent that technology borrows from biology for ideas!
 "Studies of the vision of the horseshoe crab, supposedly one of the earlier forms of life, have taught engineers how to produce a clearer, sharper television picture. The United States Air Force copied a speed-sensing system from beetles to improve the ground speed indicators of their jets. The optics of a frog's eye showed them how to improve their radar. The fly's multifaceted eye taught engineers how to design a lighting system that generates more light with less energy."
   So evolution teaches that there is no intelligent designer.  Perhaps some deistic entity that works through randomness.  But life is to be free from design.  we understand that technology is the design of man.  But how can mindless chance become more intelligent than man to the point where Man looks to mindless chance in hopes of greater intelligence and guidance?
"DeYoung pointed out that though the automotive engineers had gone to the aquarium to design a car patterned after the sleek shark, the vehicles Daimler Chrysler ended up basing their automobile designs on was the boxfish. And it wasn't just the fish's shape that they copied. By patterning the door panels after the hexagonal skin pattern of the fish, the cars were found to excel in safety, comfort, maneuverability and environmental friendliness. The compact cars even boasted excellent gas mileage to as high as 70 miles per gallon!"

In fact there have been Insects with gears identical to mechanical gears!

Irreducible complexity

"‘What type of biological system could not be formed by “numerous, successive, slight modifications”? Well, for starters, a system that is irreducibly complex. By irreducibly complex, I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition non-functional’ [italics in original]."Behe, M.J., Darwin’s Black Box, Free Press, New York, p. 39, 1996.

How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems – those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.

Read more at:
How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems – those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.

Read more at:
How natural selection can drive the evolution of complex molecular systems – those in which the function of each part depends on its interactions with the other parts--has been an unsolved issue in evolutionary biology. Advocates of Intelligent Design argue that such systems are "irreducibly complex" and thus incompatible with gradual evolution by natural selection.

Read more at:
diggin up bones
      "...Intermediate links?  Geology assuredly does not  reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."  On the imperfection of the geologic record Charles Darwin

"We find mammals in almost all of our (dinosaur dig ) sites . These were not noticed years ago . We have about 20,000 pounds bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher . It's not that they are not important , it's just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals . I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs ."
Interview with Dr Donald Burge, curator of vertebrate paleontology, College of Eastern Utah Prehistoric Museum by Dr Carl Werner, 13 February 2001, in Living Fossils—Evolution: The Grand Experiment, Vol. 2, New Leaf Press, 2009, p. 173

Whale evolution.. or a fish tale?
"But this assumes the point in question. Are whale hips indeed adapted—or, rather, designed—for limb articulation and not as support for their reproductive organs? Since the whale “pelvic girdle” does not even link to its spine, legs attached to a whale’s pelvis would only get in the way. This new research shows that whale hips are not designed for limb articulation at all, but for another important job involving God’s command from Genesis to “fill the earth.”
Whales use their hips for sexual reproduction, the idea that these bones are for walking is kind of.... stupid.

A. How can we accurately map evolution?

B.  Why not a crocoduck?
 This argument appears flimsy; but the point is that much of Evolutionary theory uses imagination to create animals in it's family tree.  But when we talk about the massive changes of macro evolution and give unlimited time scales then we can come up with all sorts of mythical animals and call it science.

C.  How do we really know the ages?
  "Because radiocarbon decays relatively quickly, fossils that are even 100,000 years old should have virtually no radiocarbon left in them.1 But they do.
Jurassic World characters repeatedly mention "million years ago" in the context of their dinosaurs. In the movie, fictional scientists essentially resurrect and genetically redesign dinosaurs, pterosaurs, and even a giant mosasaur—creatures supposedly extinct for 65-75 million years.
The CRSQ study authors tested seven dinosaur bones, including a Triceratops from Montana, hadrosaurids, a cartilaginous paddlefish, a bony fish, and fresh-looking wood and lizard bones from Permian layers in Canada and Oklahoma. Five different commercial and academic laboratories detected carbon-14 in all the samples, whether from Cenozoic, Mesozoic, or Paleozoic source rocks. How did that radiocarbon get there?
The team also compared the results to several dozen published carbon-14 results for fossils, wood, and coal from all over the world and throughout the geologic column. Comparable amounts of radiocarbon showed up in almost 50 total samples.2"  

Ecosystems: Environmentalist have always focused on the fragility of the environment.  but if environments are fragile then does this not point to a design which has certain limits?

Coevolution is defined as:
‘joint evolution of two
    or more non-interbreeding species that have a close ecological relationship;
through reciprocal selective pressures, the evolution of one species in the relationship is partially dependent on the evolution of the other [emphasis
The problem is, since coevolution requires already
existing ecological relationships, it cannot account for the
origin of ecology.
It is possible for two species in close ecological relationship to refine their relationship through mutual selection, but this does not explain how they came to be ecologically related in the first place. There must be some other explanation.
On the contrary, accumulating evidence from ecology
and biodiversity studies suggests something quite different
from gradual evolutionary accumulation of species and step
by step development of what would eventually become
essential ecological relationships. The current
indispensable nature of many ‘ecological services’, and the relationships that provide them, suggests that, just as ecological services are necessary now, past ecosystems would also have needed them, but not necessarily in identical ways. Moreover, the essential nature of ecological relationships now does not appear to allow time for evolutionary development of ecology.
Ecosystems would have failed many times over without the
full range of ecological services"

ARK-EOLOGY) How did they fit all the animals in the ark?
I think we should be careful to remember that when we discuss species we should be careful to note what we mean.
     1. kinds not species.
      2.  plants, fish, microbiology need not apply
    3.  ark size

"Advanced physics students at Leicester University were tasked with determining if the Biblical dimensions of Noah's ark—assuming it was properly constructed—could have supported the mass of 70,000 animals. Student Kayie Raymer told UK's The Telegraph that after other "more serious" assignments, this one was "something different."1 What did they find?
The students used 48.2cm (almost 19 inches) as the length of a cubit to estimate the total dimensions of the ark. Using the density of water and Archimedes' principle of buoyancy, they calculated the total mass the ark could contain without sinking.
"Previous research has suggested that there were approximately 35,000 species of animals which would have needed to be saved by Noah," according to The Telegraph, though they cited no source for this estimate. Doubling this number to account for a male and female of each species, the student group estimated that the ark needed to have held approximately 70,000 creatures. To the students' surprise, they found that this amount did not exceed the total mass the ark could contain. Physics student Thomas Morris told The Telegraph, "You don't think of the Bible necessarily as a scientifically accurate source of information, so I guess we were quite surprised when we discovered it would work." The students published their results in Leicester University's Journal of Physics Special Topics.
The students' results at the ark having 70,000 creatures actually exceed biblical expectations, giving further assurance that the ark could hold all that it needed—including food and even water."
Knapton, S. Noah's Ark would have floated...even with 70,000 animals. The Telegraph. Posted on April 3, 2014, accessed April 3, 2014

    4. post flood speciation
"Some people who object to a recent-creation interpretation of Genesis point to the fact that such a view requires that all modern animal species on earth must have descended from these same species saved on the Ark. If the Ark had roughly 30,000 animals (less than 15,000 species or different kinds), how could the animals on the Ark produce millions of species within a few hundred, or a few thousand, years after the Flood? Surely this would require a faster evolutionary rate than even the most ardent evolutionist would propose.
However, it is not correct to assume that a few thousand species would have produced the millions of species extant (alive) today. There are fewer than 30,000 extant species of mammals, birds, reptiles, and possibly land-reproducing amphibians (many salamanders) that were represented on the Ark. The millions of other species are the invertebrates (>95 percent of all animal species), fish, and a few aquatic mammals and reptiles that survived in the water during the Flood. The processes of speciation discussed above need to only double the number of animal species from 15,000 to 30,000. This is certainly a feasible process based on observable science."

Lions and dragons and unicorns, Oh My!!
Job 40:15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

41 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?
Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?
Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?
Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?
Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?
Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?
Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.
Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?
10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?
11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.
12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.
13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?
14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.
15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.
16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.
17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.
18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.
19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.
20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.
21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.
22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.
23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.
24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.
25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.
26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.
27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.
28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.
29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.
30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.
31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.
33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.
34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

 scriptures that reference dragons.....

their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.
I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.
though thou hast sore broken us in the place of dragons, and covered us with the shadow of death.
Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
Ica stones made by the ancient Incas
Psalm 148:7
Praise the Lord from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:
And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.
In that day the Lord with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

And thorns shall come up in her palaces, nettles and brambles in the fortresses thereof: and it shall be an habitation of dragons, and a court for owls.
And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.
The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, my chosen.
Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?
And I will make Jerusalem heaps, and a den of dragons; and I will make the cities of Judah desolate, without an inhabitant.
Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.
And the wild asses did stand in the high places, they snuffed up the wind like dragons; their eyes did fail, because there was no grass.
And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.

Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me, he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with my delicates, he hath cast me out.
And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwellingplace for dragons, an astonishment, and an hissing, without an inhabitant.
speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.
Therefore I will wail and howl, I will go stripped and naked: I will make a wailing like the dragons, and mourning as the owls.

and I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness.proof of dragons as dinosaurs.

Is fire breathing possible?
bombadier bettle
"When threatened, bombardier beetles spray the suspected attacker with a boiling hot mixture of caustic chemicals. The predator hears a loud pop, then finds itself bathed in a cloud of toxins reaching 212° F (100° C). Even more impressive, the bombardier beetle can aim the poisonous eruption in the direction of the harasser.
The beetle itself is not harmed by the fiery chemical reaction. Using two special chambers inside the abdomen, the bombardier beetle mixes potent chemicals and uses an enzymatic trigger to heat and release them."


Unicorns were not horned horses of victorian myhtology.  It was most likely this breed of rhinoceros, among other one horned beasts.

God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.
God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows.  (one possibility...)
His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.
Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? (another possibility)
Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.
He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.
But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.

And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

Cryptozology)"The coining of the word cryptozoology is often attributed to Belgian-French zoologist Bernard Heuvelmans, though Heuvelmans attributes coinage of the term to the late Scottish explorer and adventurer Ivan T. Sanderson.[6] Heuvelmans' 1955 book On the Track of Unknown Animals traces the scholarly origins of the discipline to Anthonie Cornelis Oudemans and his 1892 study, The Great Sea Serpent.[7] Heuvelmans argued that cryptozoology should be undertaken with scientific rigor, but with an open-minded, interdisciplinary approach. He also stressed that attention should be given to local, urban and folkloric sources regarding such creatures, arguing that while often layered in unlikely and fantastic elements, folktales can have small grains of truth and important information regarding undiscovered organisms."

hoax?  basking shark? Dinosaur/sea serpent?
 One major argument abandoned by creationist was the breif capture of a dinosaur looking corpse in New Zealand by japanese fisherman.  The crew threw away the corpse for fear of contaminating the load. People in japan were so moved at the time that they made a "dinosaur day holiday in honor of the catch. later it was disissed as a basking shark.  Loosing this argument would not force anything against belif in creation and many YEC's abandoned the argument.  But was there still evidence? 
"Now, one might have expected the person at the centre of this investigation, Michihiko Yano, the biologist on board the boat at the time, would have been present at both meetings, but he was not; he only attended the second meeting. It would appear that the first meeting was the crucial one during which the general approach was discussed. More important, there is no paper by him recounting his first-hand account of the events in this collection of papers. It appears that all his evidence was carefully filtered by his superiors and he is only occasionally referred to in their writings."
" The two authors admit that, due to their specialist subjects, they may not be fully qualified to discuss the classification of the carcass. They continue saying that "the only material providing evidence" is the horny fibres Yano brought back. They contend the photos "are apt to lead to diverse interpretations", and the verbal descriptions and sketch "may have been largely biased or influenced by the observer's preconception."
 "Yano and all the crew members were experienced and would have easily recognised the corpse of a shark and thrown it back. Yet they were baffled by the identity of the carcass. They all gave as accurate a description of it as they could without claiming that it was any particular species - living or extinct. Why should such evidence be dismissed as "biased" when they had no motive to gain from their evidence?. They could not make any money or prestige from the incident as the carcass had been thrown away."
John Koster wrote an article that appeared in "Oceans" November 1977. This was also reproduced on the website of the Missouri Association for Creation [10]. His article provided the four clear colour photographs of the carcass that we have used here, and the introduction hoped that readers would "enjoy the article which evolutionists policed from your review". We are grateful to the MAC that they have publicised this important article and particularly the colour photos.
In the article, Koster gives a very objective review of the evidence. Much of it is in favour of the plesiosaur identification, and he gives the following comments by Japanese professors:
"It's not a fish, whale or any other mammal. It's a reptile and the sketch looks very like a plesiosaur". A professor of palaeontology is quoted as saying, "Even if the tissue contains the same protein as the shark's, it is rash to say that the monster is a shark. The finding is not enough to refute a speculation that the monster is a plesiosaur".
"Yano went before a board of three professors who were clearly puzzled by the evidence. Amongst the comments they made were,
    "If this had been a seal, the tail would be too long... If this had been a reptile the number of bones around the neck should be greater according to the drawing... Its easier to survive in the sea than on land. One theory is that the creature is a mammal, and the other that it is a long-necked monster (in other words, a plesiosaur). Within my knowledge it looks like a plesiosaur. But I can't say for sure... If it were a shark, the spine would be smaller, and the neck is too long as shown in the picture. I think we can exclude the fish theory... I don't think it is a fish... If its a reptile, it looks like a plesiosaur. The plesiosaur has fins in the front and back and the neck and tail were not too terribly long."  "

I encourage you to read the article more in depth at
Until then a picture is worth a thousand words....

TYPICAL BASKING SHARK                                                 


Here is a giant 28ft basking shark corpse found on a Rhode Island beach!


  For some reason people never connected the dots between this dinosaurs and the many sightings of the lochness monster. "The most common speculation among believers is that the creature represents a line of long-surviving plesiosaurs.[5] Much of the scientific community regards the Loch Ness Monster as a modern-day myth, and explains sightings as including misidentifications of more mundane objects, outright hoaxes, and wishful thinking.[6] Despite this, it remains one of the most famous examples of cryptozoology."

btw, this is not an isolated report of Dino looking sea serpent citing around austrailia

A living dinosaur in Africa?

"Over the past 100 years, there have been many reports of sightings, in a remote area of central Africa, of a swamp-dwelling animal known to local villagers as ‘mokele-mbembe’—the ‘blocker-of-rivers’.1-7 It is described as living mainly in the water, its size somewhere between that of a hippopotamus and an elephant, but with a squat body and a long neck that enables it to pluck leaves and fruit from plants near the water’s edge. The creature is said to climb the shore at daytime in search of food.8 Witnesses’ drawings show that mokele-mbembe resembles nothing recognisable as still living on Earth, but it does bear a startling likeness to a sauropod dinosaur known to us by its fossil skeletons—similar in shape to a small Apatosaurus.9"
" However, there have been scientific expeditions mounted specifically to find the animal in the swamps that dominate much of Congo, Gabon and Cameroon. University-trained biologist Marcellin Agnagna described what he saw on one such expedition to remote Lake Tele in 1983:
‘At approximately 2:30pm, … [we] were then able to observe a strange animal, with a wide back, a long neck, and a small head. … The animal was located at about 300 metres from the edge of the lake, and we were able to adv[a]nce about 60 metres in the shallow water, placing us at a distance of about 240 metres from the animal, which had become aware of our presence and was looking around as if to determine the source of the noise. Dinkoumbou [a local villager] continued to shout with fear. The f[r]ontal part of the animal was brown, while the back part of the neck appeared black and shone in the sunlight. The animal partly submerged, and remained visible for 20 minutes with only the neck and head above the water. It then submerged completely, … no further sighting of the animal took place. It can be said with certainty that the animal we saw was Mokele-mbembe, that it was quite alive, and, furthermore, that it is known to many inhabitants of the Likouala region [an area of swampland about the same size as Florida]. Its total length from head to back visible above the waterline was estimated at 5 metres.’11
 Mackal R.P., A Living Dinosaur? In Search of Mokele-Mbembe, E.J. Brill, Leiden, The Netherlands, 1987, pp. 10–16, 75–78, 81–82. pp. 312–313

"After wandering through the temple and marveling at the twisting fig trees for over an hour, Dinosaur GlyphI finally located the glyph I was searching for near the exit to the complex. Before me, enclosed in a round circle, was a clear depiction of what could only be a stegosaurus.
The creature had a small neck and four short legs with a long tail. Along its humped back, a series of plates were clearly carved. As I stared in a wonder, a guide leading two American tourists approached the spot and casually asked them if they believed dinosaurs lived 800 years ago? He then proudly showed them the stegosaurus carving to their utter amazement."

 Romans 8:21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
Isaiah 11: The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

As we look at this overview of creation.  We see the impossibility of life from nothing.  We see the technical ingenuousness of every creature.  We understand that for this to be creation there must be a grand creator.  We live in a cursed world and that is all that we can see in our fallen flesh.  But there i hope and restoration when we consider Our Great God and listen to His infallible Word. Do you want the new creation?
Rmemeber His words

 Mark 16: 14 Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen him after he was risen.
15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
 Acts 2:  21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
1 Corinthians 15:44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.
47 The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.
48 As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly.
49 And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.
50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.

1 Corinthians 15: For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:" 

Trust in Christ!
In Christ,