Month: November 2017

With regards to the Archaeoraptor liaoningensis Sloan fraud Dr. Storrs L. Olson (Curator of Birds, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC) made some important comments about the disparity between the happenings within the science community as opposed to those occurring on the popular, or journalistic, level. He wrote an open letter to Dr. Peter Raven (Committee for Research and Exploration, National Geographic Society) in which he stated, in part:

“Prior to the publication of the article ‘Dinosaurs Take Wing’ in the July 1998 National Geographic, Lou Mazzatenta, the photographer for Sloan’s article, invited me to the National Geographic Society to review his photographs of Chinese fossils and to comment on the slant being given to the story. At that time, I tried to interject the fact that strongly supported alternative viewpoints existed to what National Geographic intended to present, but it eventually became clear to me that National Geographic was not interested in anything other than the prevailing dogma that birds evolved from dinosaurs_

More importantly, however, none of the structures illustrated in Sloan’s article that are claimed to be feathers have actually been proven to be feathers. Saying that they are is little more than wishful thinking that has been presented as fact. The statement on page 103 that ‘hollow, hairlike structures characterize protofeathers’ is nonsense considering that protofeathers exist only as a theoretical construct, so that the internal structure of one is even more hypothetical.
Atheism and science
The hype about feathered dinosaurs in the exhibit currently on display at the National Geographic Society is even worse, and makes the spurious claim that there is strong evidence that a wide variety of carnivorous dinosaurs had feathers. A model of the undisputed dinosaur Deinonychus and illustrations of baby tyrannosaurs are shown clad in feathers, all of which is simply imaginary and has no place outside of science fiction.

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age-the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. But it is certain that when the folly has run its course and has been fully exposed, National Geographic will unfortunately play a prominent but unenviable role in the book that summarizes the whole sorry episode.”

Dr. Olson made reference in his letter to “Mr. Czerkas” who is the director of the The Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah. This museum boasts that they have the only Archaeoraptor model on display for public viewing anywhere in the world. Surely, they are as most museums are not fond of putting sci-fi models of jury-rigged fossil frauds on display.
Atheism and science
Lewis Simons, who eventually reported on the Archaeoraptor fraud for National Geographic, came to the following conclusion:

“a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naïve assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, corruption, and most of all, abysmal communication.”1

In apparent exasperation as to the continuing and instant claims of missing-link-dino-birds Larry Martin (University of Kansas biologist) wrote, “You have to put this in perspective. To people who wrote the paper, the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur.” [Ji Qiang’s paper in Nature about Caudipteryx zoui. Martin was quoted in Kenneth Chang’s article, “A Feathered Dinosaur”]

As for Gigantoraptor, just as a pig’s tooth was illustrated as Nebraska Man (and his life partner) Gigantoraptor, which is an actual fossil, was imaginatively illustrated in models and paintings:

“Gigantoraptor had long arms, bird-like legs, a toothless jaw, and probably a beak. There are no clear signs as to whether it was feathered. However, judging from its close affinity to other dinosaurs known to have been feathered, Xing Xu of the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing speculates that it was.”2

It probably had a beak and who knows about the feathers yet, the illustrations fill in the gaps in our knowledge:

Atheism and science

Also consider:

Atheism and Archaeopteryx

Atheist and Darwinian Science and Story Telling, part 8 of 9

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

‹ Scientific Cenobites, part 2 of 9 up Scientific Cenobites, part 4 of 9 ›

Did Jesus Address Homosexuality?

Rev. Dr. Mel White writes, “Jesus says nothing about same-sex behavior.”

To state that Jesus did not address homosexuality is to begin with a faulty premise, which is that if Jesus did not address it then Christianity ought not have an opinion for nor against. But did He not address the issue at all? This issue requires discernment and logic. Let us read just one of Jesus’ statements:

“The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’ And He answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh‘? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:3-6 also see Mark 10:2-9).

You may be asking yourself, “What does this have to do with homosexuality?” This is the very reason we mentioned discernment and logic. It appears that we have become so impatient that unless we see the particular word that we are looking for spelled out one after another we will not see them (I have commented further on this issue in an essay entitled Did Jesus Say “I am God”? – The Faulty Premise). If I say that the only vegetable I like is asparagus could you really say “He didn’t say that he doesn’t like spinach.” No because spinach was excluded as a possibility along with all and every vegetable with the sole exception of asparagus. When the issue of marriage is brought up it is instantly referred back to, and associated with, one man and one woman in a committed relationship.

Those who say that this has nothing to do with the issue of homosexuality must consider the example we provided above. Should we likewise state that Jesus did not address the issue of bestiality, pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc.? They are all excluded by the appeal to the very premise upon which marriage and sexuality is founded. Since marriage is between one man and one woman then all else is excluded by logical conclusion, or logical exclusion. Jesus addressed the issue of homosexuality by excluding it as an inappropriate relationship.

Lastly, it is of the utmost importance to understand that unlike some religions that are based upon the teachings of one person; Christianity is based upon the teachings of various prophets and apostles. Therefore, it is fallacious to claim that if Jesus did not address something it should not be considered an issue with which Christians ought to deal.