Dinosaur Artifacts

In June of 2008, I had the privilege of photographing two artifacts showing dinosaurs in Utah. The first shows a pterosaur - the flying reptile featured in films including Jurassic Park. The painting in Black Dragon Canyon, Utah, has a wing span over seven feet, with features that were unknown to scientists until the 1980s or even 2006. This canyon is 17 miles west of Green River, Utah. Maps are available by googling "black dragon canyon pterosaur". I nearly missed it because I walked past the log corral. The painting is on the wall just above the corral. Isaiah mentions a fiery flying serpent - many people miss this, because "serpent" once meant any reptile, not just snakes. Fiery may refer to red color, or to bio-luminescence - pterosaurs may glow in the dark.

Job Chapter 40 describes a sauropod dinosaur, in astonishing detail. This photo is of a sauropod dinosaur, chipped into the rock under Kachina Bridge in Natural Bridges National Monument in central Utah.

On the upper left is a stylized man, then some unknown symbols, and below the ledge is the sauropod dinosaur. As one hiker said "you mean that brontosaur-like creature". When I said that Biblical creationists use this as evidence for a recent creation, he said "I don't go along with that young earth stuff, but it does look like a brontosaur".

The "correct"modern name is apatosaur, but, yes, that is what it looks like. Some critics of Biblical creationists claim that the smaller thing just below the sauropods chin touches it and is part of a larger, mythical creature. I looked carefully - they do not touch. And a child with us said that the smaller thing looks like a baby sauropod looking back at its' mother.

Other critics claim that the stylized man is inserted digitally by creationists. Well, my photos were print film and professional slides - and the man is there. The best way to check it out is to go there, as I did.

For more dinosaur artifacts, try http://www.dinosaursandman.com/, http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-fossils.htm, or http://www.creationists.org/dinosaurs-humans-coexisted-artifacts-and-art.html

How Did We Come To Be?

I have found that all belief systems start with matter, space, and time - already existing. All belief systems, except Judeo-Christianity.

Whether your belief system has a deity, or does not, every belief system starts with these three. It is as if we are not able to conceive of anything where these do not exist.

When I mentioned this to an unsaved friend, he said, "but so does the Bible. It just starts with 'God", but it still starts with something".

Well, though he never acknowledged it, that was my point.

No one has ever imagined an origin before time, space, and matter - except the Bible.

For those who believe in materialism - that there is no god- this means they start with these three, and go on from there. For those who believe in a god, they start with these three, add in a god, and go from there.

Only the Bible (and beliefs based on it) start with a God who creates the time, space, and matter.

It is nice to realize that we Bible-believers are unique.

Some who believe in the Big Bang object. But, yes, the Big Bang starts with pre-existing time, space, and matter. The original theory had a ball of matter about one light year in diameter. More recent versions have all that matter scrunched into a sphere "smaller than the period at the end of this sentence", or even "a quantum fluctuation in the vacuum". All Big Bang theories have these three in existence, and start from there.

So, a few questions for materialists: Where did the matter come from?
Where did the space come from?
Where did the time come from?

For deists, where did these three come from?
And where did your deity come from, since he was not there until the time, space, and matter existed? Is he dependant on them?

For all: Will you accept the unique belief system, and accept Jesus Christ, who is God your creator, as your Savior?

Creation Debate

One News Now has a debate ongoing about evolution and creation, including the Vatican's stance on evolution
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=437818

That article is on whether the Gospel really needs creation and Genesis.

I find Dr. Terry Mortensen's comments illuminating and accurate. I would add that the Bible defines the everlasting gospel. Revelation 14 verses 6 and 7 say "I saw another angel flying in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach to those who dwell on the earth - to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people - saying with a loud voice, "Fear God and give glory to Him, for the hour of His judgement has come, and worship Him who made heaven and earth, the sea and springs of water" ".

So the Bible says that the everlasting gospel is that God created, will judge, and we should worship Him.

Seems to me that creation is indeed central to the gospel.

And I have seven unsaved brothers who agree - by default. They get extremely angry whenever I bring up creation, or, heaven help me, say that science supports the Bible.

Why do the unsaved get angry about the facts of creation? Because they have evil in their hearts, and as the light of truth shines into their hearts, they reject the truth and the One who brings that truth. Just as I did for the first 24 years of my life. And just as the Gospel of John ,Chapter 1, says that do.

Origins

What Evolution Cannot Explain

Evolution proponents say that evolution is an elegant theory which can explain everything. Having believed in evolution from the seventh grade until I was 24, I agreed, but I now have a few questions. I believe that evolution cannot adequately explain the following:

The origin of life
The film “Expelled; No Intelligence Allowed” (praised by many, criticized by a few) included clips of scientists admitting that they do not know how the first life came to be. They still believe that it did; one proposes (in the film and in a scientific article) that the first “self-reproducing molecule” (DNA) may have developed on the back of a crystal, and this then led to life. No one would believe that plastic and glue models of DNA developed on the back of a crystal – why would anyone believe that DNA itself could? After all, DNA is billions of times more complex than any model of DNA.

The origin of the first living cell
The cell requires a minimum of 250 proteins, acting together with the chemically-matched DNA molecule. Sir Fred Hoyle has calculated the probability of getting one protein by natural development. That probability was 1 chance on 10 to the 40,000th power. That is one billionth of one billionth of one trillionth, of one … well, that rounds off neatly to no chance at all. Probability theory says that it could not happen even once, anywhere in the universe, even if there were trillions of years to work with. The probability is so small that he (as an atheist) said that “life on this earth must have come from some vast intelligence, and that intelligence may, for want of a better word, be called god”.

The origin of appetite
We all have appetites, but where did they come from? Each cell needs food, and will die if it does not get it, on time. The appetite for food is believed to have arisen in the first simple cell, and all later cells had it as well. But how does the cell know that it needs food? When it is out of a nutrient, there is a mechanism that senses the lack. How did that mechanism arise?

The origin of sexual reproduction
With appetites in place, and cells desperately eating everything they can get their cell walls around, why would they voluntarily give up part of themselves and give it to someone else? And if they wanted to, how would they? The process of sexually reproducing DNA rearranges the DNA – although this process does not add information to the genetic code, the information about how to rearrange the DNA has to be built into the DNA.
There is no information about where this information came from, and no adequate theory for how or why it arose.
And then the receiving organism – the “female” has to have the mechanism to accept the “male” donation, and use it to make a new organism. It has to do this without consuming the donated material. Yet, the appetites make it want to consume this material, which is ideally suited to it as a food source.
So, there needs to be a mechanism for rearranging the DNA; another mechanism for sending it out of the “male”; another mechanism for accepting it into the “female”; another to prevent the female from consuming the donation; another mechanism for the female to rearrange her DNA; another mechanism for combing the donations from each; and yet another mechanism for splitting the new organism from the female. That is seven mechanisms, in two different organisms, at the same time and within the same drop of water.
And there are no theories to explain any of this.

The origin of multi-cellular life
How do cells know to stick together, and not eat the nearby cells?

The origin of specialized cells
How do some cells produce enzymes they don’t need, to supply them to cells which do not produce them?

The origin of organs
A more extreme version of the above problem.

The origin of “self”
Cells recognize similar nearby cells as belong to the same organism. The don’t eat them, and often cooperate with them. Why? And, how?
Now explain that for multi-cellular organisms.
And now explain that for microbes (don’t eat your young)

The origin of symbiosis
How can small, tasty fish and shrimp swim into the mouths of predators, and clean off the parasites, without being eaten?

The origin of DNA
Three billion, 500 million molecule pairs, all arranged as a ladder, twisted in three dimensions. The probability of this is less than 2 chances in 10 to the 842 power. It cannot have evolved even once, anywhere in the universe, even given 20 billion years.

The origin of proteins

The origin of programmed cell death (apoptosis)

The origin of species

The origin of

So, what can evolution explain? Evolution can explain the retention of the features above: natural selection removes defectives from the gene pool, so only organisms with these features remain.

Oh, by the way, according to Wikipedia, “Edward Blyth wrote three articles on variation, discussing the effects of artificial selection and describing the process of natural selection as restoring organisms in the wild to their archetype (rather than forming new species). These articles were published in The Magazine of Natural History between 1835 and 1837.[3][4]“ As a creationist, he was arguing for natural selection as causing speciation, but preserving the original created kind. Thus, natural selection is equally applicable to evolution and creation models.

Speciation, as observed, splits kinds into new groups, but does not create anything new. Natural selection does not provide evidence for upward evolution. And the theory of evolution cannot explain the origin of anything.

Photos on Friday

I will be showing photos from a Southwest tour this June. Come by the Shilo Inn in Richland, Washington November 14 at 6 am for breakfast, fellowship, and some fantastic slides. Breakfast is $8.50, the slides are free.

Photos include fossils at Dinosaur National Monument,

artifacts of dinosaurs and men in Utah,

Monument Valley,

Grand Canyon, and The Wave at Paria (see entry below).

The Creation Museum, and the Flood

Regarding the Creation Museum, and Ken Ham: I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering (1977, UNM), 30 years experience as a nuclear safety engineer, and a Bachelor of Theology (2004, CLST). After accepting evolution and an ancient earth in 7th grade, I learned enough to reject both by 40. Can anyone explain these two photos I took at “The Wave at Paria” north of the Grand Canyon? The first appears to me to show mudflows, fast enough to have whirlpools, which were altered by earthquakes, and then part slid above the rest. Only then did it harden into stone - but all the layers were mud while they were being altered. And, the altering is consistent with Psalm 104 which says that "the mountains rose, the valleys sank down" while the Flood was upon the earth.

The second photo shows layered mud, swirled, then hardened into stone. Both defy the BLM explanation that The Wave was sand dunes, hardened into stone. I consider The Wave to be the best evidence, outside the Bible, for the Biblical Flood.

And, though I have never met him, I consider Ken Ham to be both ethical and honest. I look forward to visiting the Creation Museum, which is also honest, as well as being awesome. The existence of the Flood demolishes the temple of time, needed for evolutionary theory.

The Greatest Generation

THE GREATEST GENERATION ?

A Speech by Greg Morgan

Presented to the Desert Wind Toastmasters club, 10/14/2004

Tom Brokaw called them The Greatest Generation … those who grew up during the Depression, won World War II, and built the modern America. That’s quite a claim. A claim that they were greater than the generation that fought the Revolutionary War, than the generation that fought the Civil War, the generations that fought the Spanish-American War, World War I, Korea, Vietnam, the first Gulf War, and the current war on terror. Also that they were greater than those generations which built decades of peace and prosperity. Were they truly The Greatest Generation? Let me introduce one man from that generation, and let each of you decide for yourselves.

This man was raised in swamp-east Missouri, on a farm, by his grandparents because his mother died when he was barely more than born. The area was poor before the Depression, and the Depression started before he was ten. When he was eight, he was given a .22 rifle and a box of shells. It was his job to bring home game for the family table. If he brought in 45 animals from each 50 shot box, he got enough money to buy another box of shells. If not, he had to earn the difference. He became a good shot – or else. As a teen, he earned money by clearing canal banks, to drain those swamps, in the heat and humidity of the midwest. He once visited a friend at dinner time, and found on the table one pot of beans, mustard, and a pan of corn bread. That was far less than he normally had, but most people in the county lived on such fare. He grew up tough, strong in body and in mind.

When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, he signed up for the Navy. As basic training ended, people came around asking for volunteers, for “the toughest and most dangerous job in the Navy”. This tough man was quick to volunteer. The training was for the Underwater Demolition Teams, and that training was tough. Toward the end, the trainers would continue the daily physical training until someone was exhausted enough to drop out. After a friend was the one to drop out, this man decided enough was enough, and challenged the trainer. They ran and did push ups and pull ups until the trainer dropped out. That ended that practice - at least in his training class.

In one operation, the team did their mission well. On the way out, one of his friends got such bad cramps that he could not reach the pick up point on time. This man pushed his friend out, even though he knew that the boat would only make one pass to pick up the team. More important, the underwater blast from the mine they had set caught them before they got out of the harbor. The blast injured his back so badly that he had trouble getting his friend the rest of the way to the pick up point. His body protected his friend from the blast. Fortunately, the boat skipper violated orders and came around a second time (endangering the boat and the crew), and picked them up. He spent six weeks in the hospital while his friend enjoyed liberty.

Trained by the Navy as a truck driver, after the war he drove trucks cross country for a living. One dark night, he came around a curve in Utah, where he met a truck. Not a problem, until he saw the lights of a jeep coming around the truck. He could not stop in time, and with a cliff dropping off on his side, he decided that the jeep driver had just killed himself – and then he saw the children in the back seat. He thought, “I just fought a war to save those kids lives …” and he turned the wheel to go off the road. The rear trailer broke off, and he tried to stop the tractor. Then the natural gas tank he had been hauling bounced – did you know they could bounce? – and he had to avoid it while missing the rocks. He also had to accelerate and then brake to get away from it. After five bounces, he got away from the tanker, and something kept it from exploding. He had risked his life for those children, and somehow they all lived.

At a truck stop, he met the baker of the best lemon meringue pies in the Southeast. They were married, and they had 13 children. Though the first died, the rest were raised to be hard working, though maybe not as tough as their father. He provided well for them, with enough food and clothing at all times, and usually far better than what he ate as a child. He taught them all to be law-abiding, peaceable, and good citizens and good parents to their own generation.

Was this the greatest generation? And was this man typical of that generation? As you have probably guessed, I am proud to call this man my father, and I am rather (perhaps very) biased. But, this generation has my vote: This was The Greatest Generation.