Posts Tagged ‘forensics’
More tilting at mammoths
Written by Chris
Wednesday, 16 April 2008 16:27
No Comments

Recent find shows more assumptions than certitude

MSNBC via Reuters reveals that the remains of yet another baby mammoth are being studied in Russia. So far they have done the typical medical scans that scientists do for ancient creatures/humans in order to better understand the inner organs of the animal. They are also decoding its genome.

This really is a fascinating study, with scientists invoking visions of “Jurassic Park.” While they do not specifically reference the movie, they are discussing the idea of resurrecting some now extinct gigantic ancient birds from New Zealand or Madagascar (such as the Moa, and a species of enormous “Lord of the Rings” size eagles).

For the purposes of comparing homologous features, I have included a link to the MSNBC article on the mammoth, as well as a link to a news story about an African elephant that was born just last year at the Louisville zoo. Each article has photographs enabling you to compare the specimens for yourself.

In examining the photos, I’d like to call your attention to some features that can be seen in the prehistoric mammoth.

First of all, it must be pointed out that the mammoth has been damaged. Predators or onsite conditions seem to have destroyed the ear and the tail which are both mostly missing.

Essentially the mammoth (because it was of the woolly variety) would have had hair. But conditions apparently rendered the hair so fragile that it had simply fallen out, decomposed, etc.

Scientists have concluded that the cause of death was drowning. However, there is still some debate as to whether this is true or not. It is my understanding, that in studies of mammoths discovered all over Russia and even in Alaska, most have died with a single common denominator; they had silt in their systems. Silt is certainly different from “wind-blown” material, but it is questionable whether silt would appear different from wind-blown material in a find like this.

In addition to the linked African elephant photos in this post, I have also seen newspaper photos of the same elephant. When you compare these photos with the photos of the prehistoric mammoth, you find that they appear to be nearly identical. Granted, it seems that the prehistoric elephant’s ears were probably smaller (judging from point of attachment), making it similar to the Asian variety of elephant. This makes total sense, since Asian elephants are closer geographically to where this latest find was discovered.

Of course, missing from the modern elephant is the woolly hair. The point of the matter, is that these creatures sans the hair in the modern version and aside from the probable Asian/African difference show that forms even over thousands of years do not necessarily change that much. This is not an indication of a “higher form of life” as evolutionary theory predicts. When we witness the progression from an ancient “elephant” type to the modern one, there is a loss of genetic information, indicating “DE-EVOLUTION,” degradation.

In the meantime, we may not be able to bring back the dinosaur (we just don’t have enough genetic material or a modern host “mother” to artificially do so) but please, scientists, do try to bring back those “Lord of the Rings” size eagles and the moa!

By: Chris of themuseandthescribe.com

Sources:

1.. “Baby Mammoth Reveals Ancient Secrets,” Reuters, April 10, 2008, by Dmitry Solovyov.

2. “ Louisville Zoo Makes History with Successful Elephant Birth,” Wave 3 TV News, March 26, 2007.

 
Are Creationists Nuts? Part IV: Noah’s Ark Sensationalism
Written by Chris
Wednesday, 20 February 2008 04:43
4 Comments

NOAH'S ARK SENSATIONALISM: What are we to make of Noah's Ark news? Believe it? Or reject it? Is it the Ark enthusiasts versus the skeptics, or is there something in between? Here we try to separate the serious from the sensational.

I recently had the opportunity to take part in a short seminar led by Dr. Paul Maier of Western Michigan University. One of the themes of his latest seminar is sensationalism surrounding the many books in recent years about the life of Jesus Christ. His main complaint is that many of them are distortions, not grounded in real history.

People love the sensational, but it is usually not grounded in truth. Recently, a twenty year old "find" of a "Jesus tomb" was trumpeted as the "possible" place where Jesus and his family were supposedly buried. Now if you haven’t heard about this, don’t be surprised or concerned.

First of all, the name "Jesus" (at least the Hebrew/Aramaic equivalent) was an extremely common name even in Jesus’ time. Not only that, but so were all the first names of the people in the Gospels, as were the names of those buried in this particular tomb. Archaeologists had long dismissed this as an insignificant find, and gave it the same treatment when it was brought up again last year. It may have been someone named “Jesus” in that particular tomb, but it was not Jesus “the Christ.” Yes, we still affirm the doctrine of the Scriptures and the Apostles themselves, that Christ truly rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven.

Maier also mentioned, briefly some of the sensationalism surrounding “Noah’s Ark.” And even as someone who believes that the Ark could yet be found on a mountain somewhere, I understood where Dr. Maier was coming from. There IS a great deal of SENSATIONALISM surrounding Noah’s Ark. Dr. Maier pointed out that every year it seems there is some group claiming that they have found Noah’s Ark on Mt. Ararat (or elsewhere), and yet the question remains: Why is it always that the "find" can’t be verified; claims are made that it has gone “under the ice” again, or any number of other excuses? I am reminded of French explorer Fernando Navarro, who brought back samples, allegedly of the Ark. However, carbon dating of the wood showed it to be too far out of range to be genuine.

So, I agree that there is plenty of sensationalism surrounding Noah’s Ark. But as a believer in the historicity of the Ark narrative, I must ask which "facts" should we believe about it, and which ones should we discard? Should we rank Ark researchers among UFO, Nessie, and Sasquatch researchers, the stuff of the X-Files, or is there something more to it? Should we trust the Ark researchers or the skeptics? Unlike “Sasquatch and company,” I will argue that there is actually more than merely specious evidence which points to the fact that the Ark has existed in the past and may even actually be around to this day. It’s in its own category.

Editor's Note: This excerpt reproduced with the permission TheMuseAndTheScribe.com. To view the rest of this commentary visit TheMuseAndTheScribe.com.

The writer also wanted me to add that the picture used for this piece is the "alternative" Ark site claimed by David Fasold and Ron Wyatt, which is a volcanic formation that was later "fortified." John Morris has studied this, and confirmed it. Wyatt and Fasold would fall into the "sensationalist" camp Chris mentions in his piece. (Although one of that pair has since passed away, and according to Chris the other has rejected the site pictured as a hoax.)