Lassoing the Biblical Leviathan

A spell back, we discussed the biblical creature known as behemoth and how liberal Bible scholars try to find excuses to support long ages — and sometimes evolution. Another hotly debated critter mentioned in the Old Testament is leviathan.

Modified segment of "Carta marina" by Olaus Magnus, 1539

So, what is it? Biblical creationists believe it was probably a now-extinct dinosaur or something similar. Darwin's acolytes wave off any possible historical references to dinosaurs (called dragons before the word dinosaur was coined) because evolution. Dinosaurs died out millions of Darwin years before humans evolved. That's the narrative, despite many accounts of dragons (dinosaurs and the like) in history.

Liberal scholars say it's a mythological creature. I'll allow that there are some uses of the name in the Psalms and the book of Isaiah, but those are poetic devices. When I call dishonest evolutionists "sidewinders" or "weasels", that does not mean those creatures are nonexistent. Also, the mythology claim doesn't fit with the text in the book of Job. God goes into detail about this fearsome creature. Can you lasso it and put it into the corral, Job, old son? That'll be the day! Not you nor your ranch hands dare face this critter. God says that he made it, so he is its master.

Something else to consider is that there is nothing like it living today. Is that a reason to say that the leviathan never existed? Highly illogical, Captain. Scientists can only learn so much from the external appearances of fossils. (Would you like to wager that if all we had were fossils of the frilled lizard, nobody would figure out its comedic escape routine?) Fossils of leviathan may not have been found. Or perhaps they do exist but its described characteristics are not apparent. Savvy?

But again, what is it? There have been several possibilities put forward (some of these are linked earlier in this post), including some kind of crocodile relative. Sure, there are some things that may give that impression that it has some things in common with crocodiles, such as body armor. However, the greater part of the leviathan's description does not support this idea. It's time to give some serious examination of the biblical text.

God challenges Job by questioning his ability to capture Leviathan and make it his servant (Job 41:1–4). Leviathan is not a creature that little children can play with (Job 41:5) and is too large for traders to sell (Job 41:6).

God reminds Job that if he is even thinking of capturing Leviathan with harpoons or fishing spears, then he needs to consider the battle that will take place (Job 41:7–8). If Job does engage in battle with Leviathan, it will be the first and only time he does battle with this mighty creature. Leviathan cannot be subdued by any man: this is a false hope, as he “is laid low even at the sight of him” (Job 41:9). In other words, Leviathan is a creature who brings fear into the heart of man; whereas, he is afraid of no one (Job 41:33).

This brings God to state the most important issue:

To read all of this extremely interesting article, click on "Drawing Out the Biblical Leviathan". In addition, something else needs to be considered. Generally speaking, biblical creationists agree to uphold the Bible as the inerrant, written Word of God, and agree that models come and go. Another article presents a case for Deinosuchus. For this rather short article, click on "Leviathan: Legend, Croc, or Something Else?"




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Paleontologists Dodging Important Ichthyosaur Questions

The hands at the Darwin Ranch get all a-twitter over discoveries in paleontology, but have a nasty habit of leaving important details laying in the rain by the bunkhouse door. A recent example involves an ichthyosaur that was fossilized during chow time.

Of course, they presuppose millions of Darwin years and use the old "fossilization takes a mighty long time" idea to try and hornswoggle people again. Perhaps the secularists didn't want to consider the implications of the neglected facts. Creationists know that the evidence doesn't support their deep-time notions, and have the unmitigated gall to think and ask questions. 

For example, if fossilization takes so long, why was the predator ichthyosaur unable to digest its prey even a little? Add this to other examples of extremely rapid fossilization and the increasingly-present soft tissues, and the evidence points to recent creation and the Genesis Flood.

Here is another example of an ichthyosaur that was buried rapidly. This one didn’t have time to digest its lunch.

Ichthyosaurs and plesiosaurs are classes of extinct marine reptiles known only by fossils around the world. Some famous fossils on display show them in the process of eating or giving birth (see photo at Creation.com), indicating that they were buried almost instantaneously, surprising them in the acts of everyday life. Now another has been found with the undigested contents of another large animal in its stomach.

Read the rest by heading on over to "Fossil Marine Reptile Buried with Last Meal Intact".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Further Feathered Dinosaur Foolishness

We have seen time and again that apparatchiks for the Darwin Party promote evolution despite evidence, not because of it. It would take a wagon train full of changes to change dinosaurs into birds, and that is not found. Sometimes they refute themselves, as in this study regarding feathers.

Credit: Pexels / Jan Kopřiva

There are major anatomical differences between birds and dinosaurs, including skeletal structures, breathing — and feathers. Indeed, feathers are actually quite complex and indicate the craftsmanship of the Master Engineer. He even planned for birds that fly to molt in a specific manner, but non-flying birds don't pay that no nevermind. A fossil called Microraptor was examined and put a burr under the saddles of researchers.

It has characteristics of a unique bird, but since the narrative has logic and science flying out the window, it is considered a feathered dinosaur. With none of the characteristics. Bad news for those who believe in dinosaur-to-bird evolution, what was found gives further indication that it was a bird. Evolving into something else? Nope. The Creator didn't put that in the plan.

Is a dinosaur still a dinosaur if it has flight feathers? A new study points to some fascinating evidence that contradicts the idea of feathered dinosaurs and confirms created kinds.

It’s no secret that birds fly in order to, among other reasons, get food and avoid becoming food. For that, they must have their feathers arranged in good order. But feathers wear out. If birds replaced their feathers haphazardly, for example, too many feathers shed from one wing and not the other, then they would lose control in flight—with lethal consequences. Therefore, many flying birds molt—replace their feathers—in a specific sequence. New research has identified evidence of this sequential molting in a so-called “feathered” dinosaur.

To read what all the squawking is about, head on over to "New Evidence Hurts Feathered Dinosaur Theory". You may also like to see, "Grave News for Dino-Bird Fossil Report".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Liberal Scholars and Behemoth

It must be stated that evolutionists and biblical creationists present material based on their worldviews. Unfortunately, professing Christians who ride for the Darwin brand elevate evolution over scriptural authority to the point of twisting the Bible to fit their presuppositions. Case in point, the creature known as Behemoth.

Image source before modification: US National Archives
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

Biblical creationists tend to believe that Behemoth described in the book of Job was probably a sauropod dinosaur that hadn't quite gotten the notion to go extinct yet, but evolutionists reject that out of hand. We also hold to the view that the Bible is inerrant in the original manuscripts, but liberals reject that. I reckon it makes it easier to perform eisegesis and tamper with meanings.

We know that word meanings change over time and usage. Argument is commonly used to describe an emotional exchange instead of a reasoned discussion and presentation of ideas. Leviathan is described in Job as well as Behem0th, but the name also repurposed in Isaiah 27:1 and Ezekiel 29:3. Context is vital. Atheists applaud when professing Christians cast doubt on the Bible that they claim to believe.

Also, these liberal tinhorns that reject the authority and inerrancy of Scripture try to pit the Bible against itself by changing meanings and taking passages out of context, often using invalid comparisons. They also appeal to other liberals and extra-biblical sources in their efforts to undermine the Word of God. Watch for weasel words of uncertainty while still attempting to cast doubt on the Bible. Also, keep an eye out when these owlhoots try to retroactively apply changed word meanings from centuries after the biblical text was written. Plus, heaping helpings of their own speculations. It's like reading evolutionists who put in "maybe", "perhaps", "we think", "could be", and other terms to prop up their views without actual evidence.

Unfortunately, if you consult the internet about pretty much anything in the Bible, and especially if you frequent skeptics’ forums, you’re likely to get bombarded with liberal critical views. While the article linked above does a great job making a case for a sauropod identification, it does not address a newer idea coming from liberal scholarship: that Behemoth was a mythical super-bull! I have been directed multiple times by various skeptics online to a particular YouTube video by Ben Stanhope, who has a bachelor’s degree from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary and an M.A. in Manuscript Cultures from Hamburg University.1 In this video, Stanhope cites several scholarly sources in his attempt to make the case that the Behemoth refers to the mythical masculine “super-bull” that hearkens to Babylonian mythology and ancient Jewish apocryphal writings. This same conclusion is also reached by old earther and online Christian apologist Robert Rowe.

To read the entire informative (and rather startling) article, follow the link to "Responding to liberal scholarship on Behemoth".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Darwin Defenders Deny Science in Biosignatures

While I want to cut some slack to evolutionists who are locked into their paradigms and do not think creatively, the secular science industry is infested with science deniers. The atheistic naturalism narrative is more important than facts and real science.

Assembled with components from Clker clipart

More and more fossils are referred to in terms of exceptional preservation, revealing evolution-defying details (like the fully-formed complex trilobite eyes). Although there were indications that some fossils were not fully permineralized (such as the use of octopus ink), young earth evidence stormed the gates of evolutionism. All sorts of rescuing devices were utilized beyond reason; some things don't deteriorate (apparently if it is Darwin's will). Although there are soft tissues and such cropping up frequently (such in this recent duckbilled dinosaur dig), they are preserved through the "exceptional conditions" that must have been common. 

Now, thought the complex scientific process of Making Things Up™, the deterioration rates of DNA, soft tissues, and other biosignatures are actually used to give Papa Darwin his millions of years. Then his acolytes can light prayer candles and chant, "Blessed be!" Here is the first of two articles.

Yale paleontologists admit soft tissue is everywhere but try to use it as data for millions of years of evolution.

One of the biggest hoodwinks in paleontology is going on before our eyes. Soft tissue in dinosaur bones is prima facie evidence that dinosaurs did not live over 65 million years ago. All their biological material should have turned to stone long before then, and yet there it was, right under Mary Schweitzer’s microscope. . . Evolutionists tried every trick in the book to make those delicate proteins and apparent blood vessels and blood cells last for millions of years. First, they claimed it was contamination from modern organisms. Then, they hypothesized that cross-links with iron and other substances might stabilize the biological tissues for millions of years. It was only theoretical, of course, since one cannot watch what happens for millions of years.

To read the full article and be amazed at how scientists can deny real science, click on "Biosignatures Reveal Intact Soft Tissue Is Ubiquitous in Fossils". Then I hope you'll come back for the next interesting item.

As we saw in the article linked above, soft tissues are becoming increasingly common, and are preserved through odd miracles of evolution. This was belied when mammoth bones were found after having been frozen in a lake, but researchers put the spurs to excavation efforts so they didn't deteriorate! It is interesting that the last mammoths were supposedly inbreeding on Wrangel Island, but this discovery was a long haul away from there.

Still, the question remains: ice or not, how could mammoth remains remain intact over such a long time as secularists presuppose? These owlhoots keep on denying what should be obvious: the earth is nowhere near as old as they want it to be, it was created recently. Tampering with science and explaining away inconvenient evidence only makes them look silly.

Frozen mammoths have been found in abundance before; this one, with intact ligaments, was found in a lake.

Can ligaments withstand 10,000 years of exposure to the elements? Prior specimens of mammoths and other mammals were entombed in ice or permafrost. This one, being excavated as quickly as possible, is in water. The Associated Press story making the rounds says this:

Read the rest of this intriguing article by clicking on "Mammoth Ligaments Found in Siberian Lake".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Soft Dinosaur Eggs Problematic for Bird Evolution

Many but not all Darwinists believe that birds evolved into dinosaurs. That concept is an assertion based on evolutionary presuppositions, not empirical science, old son. But the hands at the Darwin Ranch are all a-twitter over the discovery of soft dinosaur eggs.

Fossilized dinosaur eggs at Indroda Fossil Park
Image credit: Wikimedia Commons / S. Ballal (CC by-SA 3.0)

Since there is no evidence for dinosaur evolution (faith-based assertions are not evidence), their alleged history can be easily rewritten. Apparently different dinosaurs laid different kinds of eggs. A new discovery shows that some eggs were not like those of birds, and another egg discovered in Antarctica causes further difficulties. Also, the discoveries support claims of biblical creation science. Despite forcing the hands at the Darwin Ranch to put in overtime at the excuse mill, all they can come up with is the louche explanation akin to "it evolved" several times. Not hardly!

A pair of new studies found that some dinosaurs, and possibly some marine reptiles, laid squishy eggs. One study discovered that many dinosaurs, like turtles and snakes, laid soft leather-like eggs—not hard-shelled eggs like most birds. A second study found a massive leathery egg about the size of a football in Cretaceous sediments in Antarctica. However, they think it was from a marine reptile and not a dinosaur.

Until these discoveries, it was believed that most dinosaurs laid hard-shelled eggs, similar to birds. In fact, most theropod dinosaurs (meat-eaters) and duck-billed dinosaurs (hadrosaurs) did lay hard-shelled eggs, and possibly some long-necked dinosaurs (sauropods) too.

To break into the rest of the article, click on "Soft Dinosaur Eggs Deflate Bird-Dinosaur Evolution". You may also be interested in "Dinosaur Eggs and Challenges to the Genesis Flood".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Nodosaur Fossil Further Testifies of Genesis Flood

Back in 2017, we examined news of a nodosaur (related to the ankylosaur) in "Nodosaur News is Good News". Biblical creationists were pleased with the findings, and further information provides additional support for the Genesis Flood. Darwin's fan club made some ridiculous statements.

Suncor nodosaur fossil photo credit: Wikimedia Commons / Machairo / CC BY-SA 4.0

Secularists used their Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Rings™ to decide on the mendacity that something dies, sinks to the bottom of the water, gets gradually buried, then turns into a fossil — unbelievable. Anyone with a knowledge of animal death knows that there are scavengers, bacterial activity, and so on that will not leave something alone so it could fossilize.

In this case, the nodosaur had all the signs of being buried rapidly. In fact, scientists were able to determine what it had eaten. Also, what was a land critter doing way out yonder in the sea and getting its ownself buried with things normally found in water? That's the Flood, old son. Slow and gradual processes over long periods of time do not answer the obvious questions.

In 2017, a large dinosaur was discovered washed out to sea, similar to the dinosaur bone found 70 miles off Norway’s coast. Only this one was partially intact, nearly perfectly preserved, and still contained its last meal fossilized inside its gut. Recently, a group led by paleontologists from the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology examined the stomach contents of the dinosaur and reported their findings in Royal Society Open Science.

Gizmodo reported on the dinosaur when it was first discovered.

You can read the rest by clicking on "Dinosaur Washed Out to Sea with Its Last Meal".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

T. Rex Research and Pack Hunting

Those Jurassic Park/World movies took many liberties which included the speed of Tyrannosaurus rex and the increased size of the velociraptors. In their defense, the movies are money-making ventures to provide entertainment, not education. Also, new research on the critters came later. I have another rescuing device to offer.

When we go to movies, watch television, or even when reading novels, we have to suspend our disbelief and accept that reality. The dinosaurs in the Jurassic flicks were modified dinosaurs, so T. rex was fast and velociraptors not only taught their young, but were much larger than the turkey-sized versions that were fossilized. But that's just for fun and we have some interesting research to ponder.

Calculating body mass, bone density, comparison to living animals, and other factors, Tyrannosaurus rex was probably not entering foot races and jumping contests. A fall would probably be fatal, so it wouldn't be chasing after the other dinosaurs who taunted it by singing, "If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands..."

We recently saw questions raised about velociraptors and whether or not they hunted alone. T. rex is portrayed as a solitary hunter, but questions have been raised about whether or not they were also pack hunters because evolution. Since naturalists presuppose evolution and "pressures", evidence was interpreted in only one way, and fossils that were used in the research could be explained by the Genesis Flood. There is no evidence of dinosaur evolution (because they were created, not evolved), but the narrative of naturalism controls how evidence in interpreted.

Noting that slow-moving sauropods (a large herbivorous quadrupedal dinosaur) were rare in those communities where tyrannosaurs existed, with only a single taxon from North America known—and it lived in the southernmost portion of Tyrannosaurus’ range—the researchers believe that T. rex had to target faster prey like hadrosaurs (duck-billed dinosaurs) and ceratopsians (like Triceratops). Because hadrosaurs and ceratopsians are smaller and not as calorie-dense as sauropods, they reasoned that T. rex had “pressure for obtaining more kills due to the fact that each kill provides less resources, thus necessitating minimizing energy expenditure per hunt and maximizing resource extraction per kill, especially if that kill is shared amongst a group, [and which therefore] influenced selection for longer limbs in Tyrannosauridae.”

To read the full article, click on "T. Rex Revisited: Fast, Slow, or Pack Hunter?"



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Distinctive Fossils Oppose Evolution

We recently saw how an odd critter known as the Tully monster has caused problems for evolutionists. While information can be obtained from fossils, it is limited. It becomes even more difficult for paleontologists when they have nothing to draw from for comparisons.

A newly-discovered fossil of the spinosaurus (spine lizard) caused consternation because all of the assumptions were wrong. This is because it appears that the tail could have been used for swimming, and not many dinosaurs are known for being champion swimmers. Of course, a great deal of speculation exists in secular imaginations. Another crazy beast to consider was discovered in Madagascar in 1999 but not discussed so much until recently. Evolutionary history? This unique mammal not only interferes with evolutionary timelines (we've seen that happening quite a bit recently), but it has no so-called evolutionary history.

The three critters discussed in the link below (as well as the one up topside) are further indications of recent creation. Mayhaps the secularists should consider the evidence and declare their independence from the chains of Darwinism. That would not only be good for them, but for science as well.

When fossils are found of one-off creatures without apparent relatives, how could Darwinism explain that?

God must have a sense of humor. Sometimes it seems He likes to confuse the experts who want to explain everything without Him. Here are three fossil discoveries of strange beasts that just don’t fit a nice, smooth, gradual sequence of evolution.

You can finish reading by clicking on "Unique Fossils Defy Evolution".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Four Short Dinosaur Articles

With an abundance of material, I thought it best to combine links to these articles into one post. Each of these is a quick read but they have some interesting information about how paleontologists are baffled by new discoveries — including how one fossil blatantly defies deep-time reckoning.

Credit: Pixabay / GeorgeB2

Our first entry is about sex. Katie, bar the door! Just kidding. It's more about how difficult it is to determine the sex of dinosaurs. There have been many speculations over the years, but it's mighty difficult when all you have are bone fragments and fossils (reasonably complete skeletons are rare). Since paleontologists agree that dinosaurs were probably reptiles, perhaps a comparison with existing reptiles could help. Seems reasonable.

Recently, a new study led by Queen Mary University of London concluded that dinosaur bones tell us little about their sexes. In the past, secular scientists have made various claims about the ability to make sex determinations in dinosaurs. Most concluded that female predatory dinosaurs (theropods like T. rex) were likely larger than males. However, that appears to be unsubstantiated by the actual data.

This new study examined living reptiles to see if their bones alone could determine the sex of the animal. The research team worked with gharials, an endangered crocodilian species.

To finish reading this first short subject, click on "We Still Can’t Determine the Sex of Dinosaurs". Don't forget to come back for the second piece.

It may come as a shock to some folks, but dinosaur movies are not exactly documentaries. Why should they be? People are watching terrible lizard chomp fests for entertainment, and the movie makers want to make money. If you think about it a spell, unless something can be demonstrated to be wrong, the writers' and directors' guesses are just as valid as those of the experts.

Those shows depict dinosaurs like the Velociraptor as large, cunning hunters that worked in groups. Well, the actual Velociraptor of the fossil record were not to be feared; they were the size of chickens, so one good kick and you're home free. Once again, examining the habits of modern reptiles as well as examining isotopes in fossil teeth, gives researchers reasons to believe that dinosaurs were solitary creatures.

A new study published in Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology has found that the behavior of dinosaurs in movies is not very accurate at all. This should come as no surprise because many movies portray dinosaurs as bigger, faster, and smarter than they likely were in life. In fact, most dinosaurs in movies are more fantasy than reality.

In fact, lead author Joseph Frederickson from the University of Wisconsin's Weis Earth Science Museum has found the hunting behavior of theropod dinosaurs, like the Velociraptor, more likely hunted alone rather than in packs like many movies portray. He added:

You can find out more by clicking on "Dinosaur 'Raptors' Likely Hunted Alone". That's two short subjects, two more to go.

Lately, we've been seeing reports about the comparisons of feet and legs between humans and apes, and learned that the stiffness of the human foot and the lack of it in apes further confounds evolutionists. A good deal of information can be determined from the structure of dinosaur legs as well. The Creator designed some critters to be runners, some to be walkers. Looks like the Tyrant Lizard King was not going to chase down your jeep as you drove off.

A new study published in the journal PLOS ONE has found that T. rex had legs made more for walking, rather than running. Their long legs were well designed for sustained foraging.

T. Alexander Dececchi (from the Department of Biology, Mount Marty College in Yankton, South Dakota) and colleagues from several institutions began their article by stating,

Limb length, cursoriality and speed have long been areas of significant interest in theropod [meat-eater] paleobiology, since locomotory capacity, especially running ability, is critical in the pursuit of prey and to avoid becoming prey.

However, their current study revealed that long leg length in large dinosaurs does not necessarily equate to high running speeds.

To finish our third short article, click on "T. rex Had Legs Designed for Walking". Our final installment is problematic for evolutionists.

Your average evolution devotee believes that fossils are in an orderly progression from simple organisms to complex. However, that's the sanitized version. To look at the bigger picture, fossils appear out of order, in the "wrong" places entirely, and this dinosaur had some traits that don't fit the narrative. If naturalists would drop their preconceptions and examine creation science models, they would see that the Genesis Flood is the best explanation for the observed evidence.

A new study published in the journal Gondwana Research has identified a rather out-of-place bone from a theropod dinosaur called an elaphrosaur that apparently didn’t eat meat. In fact, it was toothless. Adding to the mystery, it was found in rocks thought by secular scientists to be 40 million years too young. Furthermore, the dinosaur was found in a location that is claimed to have been close to the South Pole. Something doesn’t add up.

The new dinosaur bone was found in 2015 near Cape Otway, Victoria, in southeastern Australia by a volunteer named Jessica Parker. It was identified as a vertebra from an elaphrosaur, or “light-footed reptile,” and is the first of this kind of dinosaur found in Australia. This group of dinosaurs fall in the ceratosaur category of theropod dinosaurs, having similarities with Dilophosaurus, a Jurassic dinosaur common in the Western USA.

To reach the startling conclusion of our quartet of short articles, click on "New Australian Dinosaur Surprises Evolutionists".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Big Dinosaurs, Little Eggs

While some dinosaurs were rather small, the ones that get our attention are the towering heavies. It is easy to assume that big creatures came from big eggs. Cartoons and dinosaur movies sometimes show extremely large eggs, but that is not the case. They hatched small and grew like other critters. What are the implications for Noah's Ark?

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / Palauenc05 (CC BY-SA 3.0)

An egg could not be the size of a typical human because the shell would necessarily be thick. In fact, it would be too think for the unhatched dinosaur to breath or even escape if it could breathe in the first place. Paleontologists have learned from fossils that, like humans and critters, dinosaurs had growth spurts in their younger years.

Biblical creationists know that God brought animals to Noah. If you think about it, there would have been no reason to have the largest dinosaurs taking up a great deal of space on the Ark. They would have been juveniles, and after they disembARKed, they went on doing dinosaur stuff.

Have you ever thought about how pairs of each of the large dinosaur kinds were able to fit onto Noah’s Ark? Some of the sauropod dinosaurs reached over 30 m (100 ft) in length and likely some 50 tonnes (55 US tons) in weight! If they had been on the Ark they would have been a bit hard to handle (but there was plenty of room). The rather obvious answer is not to take fully grown adults, but rather juveniles, on board.

However, this still poses a problem in some minds. Wouldn’t such giant beasts have had huge babies, hatching out of monster eggs? While movies like Jurassic World depict dinosaur eggs as fairly small, they have been shown in popular media and cartoons as larger than a man, even. So, what is the truth about the size of dinosaur eggs? Did big dinosaurs lay big eggs, posing big questions for Noah’s Ark?

To read the rest of this eggciting article, click on "The biggest dinosaur eggs — Just how big were they, and what are the implications for the Ark?" Also of interest is a feedback article, "Pre-Flood predatory dinosaur interactions and the fossil record".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Another New Pterosaur Discovery

Pterosaurs have been interesting additions to movies about dinosaurs and such, and most of us probably can picture the winged reptiles. What may be less known is that there were many types. Big ones, little ones, many teeth, no teeth — in many parts of the world. Now paleontologists have added another one.

Credit: Modified from an image at Wikimedia Commons by Antonio R. Mihaila (CC BY-SA 4.0)

The hands at the Darwin Ranch are so excited about this, they are going to add it to the festivities when they dance around the maypole. But they still don't know where to place it on the failed evolutionary tree, and have no evidence of its evolution. We may be tempted to say, "Big deal, another flying reptile". Well, it is a discovery, and we can expect additional news about recent pterosaur fossils because some are very well preserved and have soft tissues. That is always bad news for proponents of deep time because these critters were created far more recently than they believe.

Pterosaurs were amazing flying reptiles that came in all shapes and sizes. Not surprisingly, when these bizarre creatures are found in the fossil record they are 100% flying reptiles. Some achieve the size of a fighter jet, such as Quetzalcoatlus discovered in Texas or Hatzegopteryx in Romania. Paleobiologists have recently discovered a new pterosaur (Afrotapejara zouhrii) in Africa belonging to a group called the tapejarids that were small to medium-sized toothless pterosaurs.

To see what the flap is about, wing on over to the short article, "New Pterosaur Discovered".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Apex Predators Before the Flood

It is interesting to think of how critters lived before the Genesis Flood, especially those predators that would not take any guff off anyone. But like in the Old West movies where someone says, "This town ain't big enough for the both of us", there is no reason to think that the mean ones all lived in the same area.

The Animals Entering Noah' Ark, Jacopo Bassano, 1570s

Dinosaurs with sharp claws and (as Tim the Enchanter might say) nasty big pointy teeth. It may be fun to watch them strutting around looking for a fight like rival gang members, but is that plausible? We know from fossil evidence that there were some rip snortin' fights, but those were probably the exceptions. The same kind of safe distance thing can be inferred from predatory animals living today.

A [CMI] reader from Ukraine, B.V., asks some interesting questions about what dinosaurs are found buried together and why. His message follows, with a response from Philip Bell, intended to provoke fruitful thought on the topic, not as an exhaustive answer to the questions raised.

How did that many animals get along before the Flood? For example, there were such apex predators in North America, as Tyrannosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Siats, Acrocanthosaurus, Torvosaurus, Allosaurus etc.

We see traces of interaction between T. rex and Triceratops, Allosaurus and Stegosaurus. If they lived at the same time, why don’t we see traces of interaction between T. rex and Stegosaurus or Allosaurus and Triceratops?

There were some intelligent and agile creatures among dinosaurs. Why aren’t they as high as most of mammals in the fossil record?

Philip Bell replies:

Thank you for your question. I’d like to answer your question in a slightly unusual way.

To bite into the answer, click on "Pre-Flood predatory dinosaur interactions and the fossil record".

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Pigments Ages of the Imagination

Believers in deep time are constantly denying facts as well as principles of science, giving them false confirmation of their biases. For example, despite all the dinosaur soft tissues and other remnants, the discovery of dinosaur DNA, and more, materialists have a "Whaddya know, that stuff does last millions of years!" approach. The same thing is happening with the "oldest" biological pigments.

Credit: Pexels / Sharon McCutcheon

 We've seen science denial (after all, the narrative trumps observed evidence) in the colors of dinosaurs and in dinosaur eggs. While this post is not about dinosaurs, these examples show how secularists clutch their pearls and deny inconvenient facts. It is no surprise that they believe the impossible about other biological pigments (perhaps they studied under Joe Biden at the University of Pennsylvania or something). Cyanobacteria were apparently the culprits that led to colors extracted from marine black shale, but the earth is not nearly as old as secularists want it to be.

Just how long can organic colours survive for? A new study claims they have survived for a whopping 1.1 billion years, more than 600 million years longer than previous similar discoveries. They have found intact porphyrins, ring molecules that are important components of many biological pigments, including hemoglobin and chlorophyll.

You can read the rest of this short article by clicking on "‘Oldest’ biological colour discovered".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Dinosaur DNA: More Bad News for Deep Time

New links added at the end of the post in mid-March 2020. 

The atmosphere at the Darwin Ranch could accurately be described as subdued. Creationists have been trying to keep them honest, but evolutionists insist on their materialism and deep time beliefs despite science and logic. They have been faced with numerous refutations across the board, but what has been most devastating involves dinosaurs.

Soft tissues were found that could not possibly have lasted for millions of Darwin years. Evolutionists then had to deal with intact skin, blood vessels, and proteins. Desperate rescuing devices ensued. Katie, bar the door! Now they are faced with dinosaur DNA, and not just dubious fragments. DNA cannot last for huge amounts of time. By the way, where did Jack Horner get his doctorate? Just joshin' with y'all, he doesn't have one.

The secular science industry is committed to naturalism, and this makes it more difficult for them to find alternative explanations and more excuses. How could something possibly last for such a long time? "Wow, I guess it does last millions of years!" No. That kind of logic comes from a fundamentally flawed epistemology. While the narrative trumps the observed evidence in so many of their stories, it won't work this time. 

Alternative explanations? That's not difficult. Truth is, tissues, proteins, DNA, and so forth are nowhere near as old as evolutionists and deep time proponents want to believe. What is found over and over is evidence for the global Genesis Flood that happened a few thousand years ago. Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Deep-timers had a big enough problem with collagen and melanosomes. But DNA should be long gone. 75 million years? No way!

Could this be the last straw? For two decades now, especially since 2005, creationists have been challenging deep-timers (those who believe life is hundreds of millions of years old, and earth is 4.5 billion years old) with dinosaur soft tissue. Secular reports have been coming in regularly about soft tissue in fossils: feathers, melanosomes, collagen, various proteins, and materials in dinosaur bones that look like stretchy blood vessels and red blood cells. Evolutionists have been scrambling to find chemical mechanisms that might stabilize the molecules over deep time (see 18 Feb 2020 for latest attempt). They trot out their theories as ‘proof’ that soft tissues can survive tens of millions of years, never taking seriously the creationist critiques, which include the fact that evolutionists themselves had already predicted that soft tissues could not survive anywhere near that long.

But DNA? That’s impossible. Sorry, Jurassic Park fans; DNA degrades way too fast. Evolutionists know that.

To read the rest of the article (frustrating for naturalists but encouraging for biblical creationists), click on over to "Dinosaur DNA Found!" EDIT: More news at "Dinosaur DNA Confronts Big Ideas" and "No Other Explanation: Dinosaur DNA!"

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Nanotyrannus is Actually T. Rex, Junior

Back in 1942, a small dinosaur skull was examined and classified as a relative of Tyrannosaurus rex. However, paleontologists did not have much to work with. Eventually, more parts were found as well as a nearly-complete skeleton in 2003 for Nanotyrannus. Upon further examination, it was determined that Nanotyrannus did not exist.

Credit: Wikimedia Commons / MCDinosaurhunter (CC by-SA 3.0)

"You mean like Nanny Pelosi, Cowboy Bob?"

Ummm...sure. While Nanotyrannus was not real under that name, it turns out that it was a teenager. The first of the two articles features is shorter and focuses on the error of growth rings, which seems similar to dendrochronology. Since dinosaurs were unique and there was a lack of data, it should not come as a surprise that this method failed. Young dinosaurs like this one are considered by many creationists to have been on Noah's Ark, and they would have matured after the Flood.

A new analysis of a small pair of T. rex-like fossils, called Nanotyrannus, shows they were actually teenage T. rexes.

Holly Woodward, from Oklahoma State University, and her colleagues reporting in Science Advances, counted the growth rings in the leg bones of the two Nanotyrannus specimens. Their results showed the specimens were not a new species. Rather, they were just 13 and 15-year-old T. rex dinosaurs.

To read the rest of the first article, click on "Teenage T. rex Fossils". The next article is more detailed.

Determining taxonomy has been problematic for a long time — especially for dinosaurs. There is prestige in making a discovery, but there have been many dinosaurs that have been reclassified as juveniles as well male and female of the same type. This is compounded by arrested growth patterns.

The latest research on one dinosaur called Nanotyrannus (Nano- or dwarf and tyrannus or tyrant) has finally firmed up what it was, a teenage T rex. Most of our information was known primarily from a single proven specimen, CMNH 7541. It was originally believed to be a new distinct genus based on a handful of cranial and postcranial features. Now, additional research on the creature’s bone tissue confirms it was merely a juvenile T. rex. The story of arriving at this conclusion is a good example of a big problem in the science of taxonomy, namely determining what is (or is not) a new species. This case also illustrates the problem of extrapolating conclusions about evolution from the fossil record.

The problem is actually central in documenting evolution. What one may conclude is a transitional form between one species and a more evolved species may well be only a juvenile of a known species, and not a new species. Paleontologists admit that “despite its iconic status as the king of dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus rex biology is incompletely understood,” even though since its discovery in 1905 the famed King of Dinosaurs “was met with intense scientific interest and public popularity, which persists to the present day.”

To finish reading, click on "Kid dinosaur was misidentified as a new species".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Spectacular Remnants to Make Evolutionists Cry

Soft tissues of dinosaurs and other critters are becoming more and more common, and so are remnants that are termed spectacularly preserved. These are existential threats to universal common ancestor beliefs, as we will see in the three posts below. Faint not, brethren, most are not lengthy.

Plesiosaur skeleton credit: Flickr / Kim Alaniz (CC by 2.0)

The first article is about the discovery of well-preserved brains and nerves in the Cambrian period. These things ought not to be because of the alleged long ages! Or is it because of global warming? Instead, fossils are showing great detail. It was thought by archaeologists — yes, I know, should be paleontologists, but the writers made the easy mistake — that soft tissues could not fossilize. Surprise! They could do that during the catastrophic processes of the Genesis Flood, and that is the best explanation.

Exquisitely preserved fossils of Cambrian arthropods show minute details of brain and central nervous system.

Paleontologists have seen remains of nerves and brains in Cambrian fossils before, but these newly-announced ones exceed all previous ones for detail. Coverage in Phys.org shows that Harvard scientists are befuddled that this much detail of soft tissue could survive before fossilization, and remain visible for over 500 million years.

You can read the rest of this first installment by clicking on "Cambrian Brains Found". Hope you come back for the next one.

Howdy, welcome back! Because Darwin's disciples must keep to the deep time framework, they are convoluted and attempting to explain away the truth. All sorts of phrases are used in their "explanations", so mayhaps the Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ would come in handy right about now. This discovery raises inconvenient questions, and points to (wait for it) the Genesis Flood.

Scientists at Lund University say, “Remarkably preserved fossil sea reptile reveals skin that is still soft.”

An ichthyosaur (a type of marine reptile thought to have died out with the dinosaurs), if it could talk, would boast, ‘I’m young! Feel my soft skin.’

But watch how evolutionists distract attention from the main thing – the apparent youth of the fossil. Their evolutionary worldview obligates them to keep this fossil with the mythical Darwin timeline. The opening paragraph in the press release from Lund University could be considered a model of confabulatory obfuscation:

You can finish reading this one by swimming on over to "Marine Reptile Found With Intact Skin". Don't forget to come back for the final piece.

Thanks for staying along for the ride. So, how about them hadrosaurs? Think they'll have a good season next year? No, of course not, they're extinct. But boy howdy yee haw, gray skin pigment molecules have been preserved! Not only that, but blood vessels. The story about the find is fatuous, so it needs (and receives) further examination. Yet still again, the best explanations are recent creation and the Flood. You savvy?

So well preserved is a hadrosaur’s skin, the remnants of blood vessels and pigments are still visible with original molecules present.

It’s a phenomenal case of exceptional preservation for a dead dinosaur, but all the scientists seem excited about is the color. Michael Marshall in New Scientist titles his article, “Mummified skin suggests duck-billed dinosaurs were grey like elephants.” But is the skin color the biggest news?

To conclude this trilogy, click on "Dino Skin with Blood Vessels, Proteins Found". If they extricated their heads from Darwinism, scientists might be able to cowboy up and have some doubts. After all, Question Evolution Day is there to remind them — and us — annually on February 12.



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Secularists Still Puzzled over T. Rex Soft Tissues

When soft tissues of dinosaurs were discovered, they were considered oddities or misunderstood. Problems for secularists continued as more soft tissues were found as well as proteins, so rescuing devices were attempted. Another effort was made that does not bode well for evolutionary ideas.

Count Krosstich told me that these folks have to deal with a great deal of cognitive dissonance. True, they are presuming that dinosaur bones have been in the ground for millions of years, but also knowing that soft tissues and proteins cannot last anywhere near that long. The toast concept and Maillard reactions have been invoked, but nothing popped up with them. New studies have tremendous flaws. These people should admit that the evidence supports recent creation and the global Genesis Flood of only a few thousand years ago.

The latest fossil biochemistry paper, published in Scientific Reports, describes “blood vessel structures” recovered from inside a T. rex femur. This is the same femur in which the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology featured collagen fibers, protein remnants, and possible DNA signatures back in 1997. Since then, debate has raged among experts. On one hand, fossil experts keep reporting more biochemicals in all kinds of fossils. On the other hand, protein experts keep confirming that biochemicals cannot possibly last millions of years. This new report attempts to bridge those two parties.

The Scientific Reports paper focused on mechanisms that might help protein last for 65 million years—the length of time that secular scientists insist the T. rex bone rested in the earth. Such mechanisms bear a big burden. Assuming normal temperatures, proteins and other biomolecules fall apart after only thousands of years.

To read the rest of the article, click on "More T. rex Soft Tissues". Yippie ky yay, secularists!

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Still More Dinosaur Feather Fake News

My old pal Miles Prower stopped by to let me know that the hands at the Darwin Ranch were cranking up the propaganda mill again, this time to give more fake news about fossilized dinosaur feathers. Here we go again.

Assembled with components from Clker clipart

We saw that proponents of particles-to-paleontologist evolution are riding hard and fast to use space aliens for propaganda, but they are especially enamored with using dinosaurs to promote evolution. People with a modicum of critical thinking skills and some degree of science knowledge should be able to see that this report is nonsense.

One significant problem here is the same as we experience at The Question Evolution Project — a frustration common to Page owners. Namely, lack of reading. People see headlines and summaries but tend to avoid actually reading the material and thinking about the poor science and reasoning involved.

Ride up on the hill for the bigger view. What did they find? Fossils of feathers. Where did they find them? Southeastern Australia. Where did the fake news say they were from? The South Pole. What is the evidence? None. Assumptions, presuppositions of evolution and deep time, circular reasoning, and basic storytelling were found. If grant money was based on actual science instead of propaganda value, these jaspers would be relegated to selling pencils outside subway terminals. Unfortunately, they are locked in with their naturalistic views, so they won't cowboy up and admit that the actual evidence they find is in keeping with recent creation and the Genesis Flood. Galileo Figaro, they're frightened!

Dino-bird evolution frequently causes excitement on social media platforms so my attention was grabbed by a picture of a fully feathered dinosaur with a sensationalist National Geographic headline that read, “In a first, fossil dinosaur feathers found near the South Pole”. However, what had actually been found differed so significantly from the headline that words such as overreaching speculation and grandiose story-telling immediately came to mind. In what follows, I have broken down the article’s salient points to highlight the highly misleading nature of National Geographic’s claims.

To read the rest of the article and learn the facts, click on "Separating fact from fiction in a farcical story! — Were fossil dinosaur feathers really found near the South Pole?"




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!