Dark matter caused the demise of the dinosaurs?

Dark matter has been invoked to solve many vexing problems in astrophysics and cosmology.1 Now it seems it has been invoked to solve the evolutionists’ problem of extinction of the dinosaurs.2

lisa-randall-at-ted-cropped

Lisa Randall Credit: Wikipedia Public Domain

American theoretical physicist and cosmologist Dr Lisa Randall has developed a breakthrough five dimensional warped geometry theory. About two years ago she proposed a new hypothesis on dark matter which suggests the mysterious invisible substance that allegedly dominates the universe played a role in killing the dinosaurs.3 She even has written a book on it—Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs. In the book her new theory is summarised as follows.

[A]bout 66 million years ago, gravitational perturbations caused by a thin pancake-shaped disc of dark matter in the Milky Way galaxy dislodged icy comets in the Oort cloud at the very edge of the known solar system, resulting in the fiery meteoroid that eventually crash-landed in the Yucatan, leading to the mass extinction of more than 75 per cent of life on the planet in the process.3

Her radical new theory even posits mass extinctions every 35 million years or so.

“I am fully aware that it is speculative,” she says.4

Dinosaurs sell books and she has written a book that needs to be sold.

I’d call it a fairytale, except that might be insulting to fairies. To believe that it could even be true takes a lot of faith, which apparently describes Randall. She is reported to be unfazed by the panoply of uncertainties that her new theory incorporates.4 Continue reading

Unicorns are not mythological creatures

New fossil evidence shows that an animal, which could be described as a unicorn, once lived on earth. Quite apart from any folklore about magical horses this means the use of the word ‘unicorn’ in early English translations of the Bible is valid.

Like giants, dragons and cockatrices, as it now turns out unicorns also are not mythological creatures. I believe the notion developed that these are mythological stems from the assumption, born from disbelief, that the Bible is not an accurate record of either history nor of science.

I have already examined the claim that giants, dragons and cockatrices are mythological. Here I examine the claim that unicorns are mythological. And it may surprise you to find that they are not the product of an overactive imagination as people have believed. But we must first separate out the facts from the fiction, which may have developed from folklore, where they are alleged to have had wings and magical powers.

Unicorn

Figure 1: The unicorn isn’t just a myth, but it didn’t look like this either. Credit: GETTY (modified).

The word ‘unicorn(s)’ is mentioned in the King James English Bible many times. See Numbers 23:22 and 24:8 states “He [literally Hebrew El, meaning God] has as it were the strength of an unicorn” (KJVER). It was an extremely strong animal. Deuteronomy 33:17 mentions “the horns of unicorns”, which may indicate a two-horned animal. In Psalms 92:10 we read “But my horn shall You [God] exalt like the horn of an unicorn:” (KJVER). Here it had a single horn. And in Isaiah 34:7 the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; …” (KJV).  Also it is mentioned in Job 39:9,10 and Psalms 22:21, 29:6.

The Hebrew word רְאֵם (r’em) is translated ‘unicorn’ in the earliest English translations. In other (old) language translations: Greek ‘μονοκερωτος’ (LXX, Septuagint, 200-300 BC), Latin ‘monocerotis’ (Jerome’s Biblia Sacra Vulgata Latina, or Latin Vulgate, 405 AD), German ‘Einhorns’ (Luther, 1545), Italian ‘liocorno’ (IDB, Giovanni Diodati Bibbia, 1649). Each of these may be translated ‘unicorn’.

The Hebrew word r’em is given the meaning ‘wild bull’ in the Mickelson’s Enhanced Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary. And in recent Bible translations it generally translated as ‘ox’ (BBE) ‘wild ox’ (ERV, ASV, NKJV, ISV) or ‘strong bull’ (NET) and in footnotes a synonym is sometimes given as a ‘wild bull’. Continue reading

Dragons are not mythological creatures

Dragons are mentioned in the Bible many times, especially in the oldest English translations. Like giants, unicorns, satyrs and cockatrices these are not mythological creatures. I believe, the notion that they are mythological stems from two sources. One is the assumption, born from disbelief, that the Bible is not an accurate record of either history nor of science. The second is related to the first, that evolution is a fact, and therefore the only possible candidate for real dragons, dinosaurs, must be ruled out because “as everyone knows the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago and therefore could not have lived in recent times with mankind.” I have already examined the claim that giants are mythological. Here I will examine the claim that dragons are mythological. (Others will be examined in future articles).

Dragons today

dragon and knight

Figure 1: Dragon-slaying knight wins heart of damsel.

Nowadays atheist skeptics use the mythology of the dragon-slayer in their attempts to discredit belief in the Bible. For example,1

“We tend to think of tales of dragons as mere fairy stories, but they were once integral to the Christian faith, and featured heavily in factual accounts of the lives of saints, including the prime authority on them, The Golden Legend.

“In medieval times people gave credence to the dozens of saints who owed their position to the slaying of dragons. These huge damsel-eating, fire-breathing, scaly, flying creatures seem a little improbable now, even to the most devout Christians. But these stories were not originally presented as figurative. They were presented as factual, and were to be interpreted literally.”

I am convinced the Roman Catholic Church, as it rose to political power during the 4th and 5th centuries, developed bogus methods to delude the populace into their counterfeit religion.  So it is no wonder that such practices continued for the following thousand of years or more. That is an indictment not on the veracity of the Bible but on the deceptiveness of the corrupt heart of man. Continue reading

What about those 100-million-year-old dinosaur fossils?

Evolutionary ‘science’ alleges the earth is about 4.6 billion years old and life started 3.8 billion years ago on the planet. It also alleges that life evolved from a single-celled ‘last common ancestor’ to all the diversity of life we see today. According to their story, the dinosaurs lived some 230 million years ago and died out about 63 million years ago. The claim is that the fossil evidence supports this evolutionary story, whereas the Bible tells a completely different story. Most of the fossils are then the result of sudden burial in all the sedimentary layers laid down by global flood waters about 4,500 years ago. Dr Jim Mason presents some compelling arguments to answer the title question. He looks at the so-called geological column, where the flood fits into that, evidence on the age of fossils, uniformitarian principles, sediments and varves, soft tissue, blood cells, and DNA in dinosaur bones, homology and transitional forms.

Lecture was given August 1st 2015. See Age and Reason Seminar Adelaide for details.

Recommended Viewing

See also other lectures given at the same seminar:

Opalised fossils or pseudofossils

“Opal is a spectacular gemstone. It is also a dazzling key to Australia’s mysterious past, because buried in the Australian opal fields are fossils of dinosaurs and other strange creatures that lived 110 million years ago, in Early Cretaceous times.”

DSC_0083

Figure 1: Belemnites were cephalopods. The ammonites are another extinct cephalopod. Living cephalopods include octopuses, cuttlefish, squid and nautiloids.

This is the opening sentence on the website National Opal Collection. The Early Cretaceous period is alleged to be from 146 million to 100 million years ago.

Fossils are the remains or impressions of living organisms preserved in sedimentary rocks. When the fossils are opalised they become literally gemstones. Teeth, bones, shells and pinecones have been found fossilized and turned to solid opal. Australia is a ready source of opals.Coober Pedy and Lightning Ridge are well known for their mines. You will find opals for sale in most central tourist areas of Australian cities.

But how does anything become opalised? It’s not magic. Most people think it takes millions of years to occur.

“And surprising as it may seem, the ingredients of opal are commonplace stuff.  Water in the ground carrying dissolved silica (similar to the glass in windows) is said to have seeped through beds of sand and grit, where the silica particles are deposited in cracks.  As the water subsequently evaporated, the silica particles became ‘cemented’ together to form the opal.  Light bending around the silica produces the variety of glowing colours.”3

Australia is the only country where opalised animal fossils are found.4 Continue reading

Skeptic Shermer resorts to ridicule because the science is weak

Skeptic Michael Shermer

Michael Shermer. Portrait by Byrd Williams, Wikipedia

Michael Shermer, the originator of the Skeptics magazine in the USA, and a Scientific American columnist, is a self-confessed apostate and atheist. So he has a vested interest in supporting his own worldview, i.e. that there is no God and as such mankind can decide what is truth for himself.

I wrote the following in response to a lecture “Why Darwin Matters:  Evolution, Intelligent Design and the Battle for Science and Religion,” which he delivered 20 August 2008 during Science Week, 2008, at the University of Western Australia, where I was working at the time. I asked the Science Faculty community engagement person, in the spirit of open discussion, if I could give a response lecture. That request was rebuffed, but they offered me the opportunity to write 200 word response in their internal online news bulletin “Science Matters.” I opted rather to write a much longer review of his lecture. This article was first published on creation.com on 22 September 2008.

In his lecture, Shermer was very insulting and condescending towards creationists and the ID movement. I felt that his sarcasm and arrogant attitude was not fitting for a scientific discussion. He adopted a ridiculing tone through most of his lecture.

Even in the Q&A time when asked, ‘How did life start?’, he answered by saying there were many theories but never gave any examples of where life had been created in the lab, let alone formed spontaneously, as evolution requires. In a condescending manner, he challenged the questioner to do the experiments and find out for himself. This presupposes that natural processes generated life, which was precisely the question at issue—such question-begging is common among believers in chemical evolution. And he had a blind spot: if scientists did make life, they would use intelligence.1 Continue reading