Building the case for ancient blood and DNA

A team of international researchers led by the University of Victoria’s April Nowell has discovered 250,000-year-old protein residue – the oldest ever found – extracted from stone tools used by early humans. –Animal residue on ancient stone tools shines light on early humans

Keep an eye on more and more discoveries of blood and blood proteins on ancient artifacts and in ancient fossils – something experimental science deems impossible until it now becomes unavoidable with many recent discoveries.

Now, even without a plausible mechanism for preserving this organic material, science is beginning to say it is possible for blood artifacts to last hundreds of thousands and millions of years, in spite of the clear and obvious conclusion from experience that they decay far, far faster.

What is happening is a case is being built that blood can last millions of years in order to avoid the contradiction with claimed ages of presumed ancient species such as dinosaurs. The truth is blood, blood proteins, and DNA can last thousands of years, not hundreds of thousands or millions of years.

In the near future it will become common place to extract blood and DNA from fossils thought to be millions of years old but it’s not because they are, it’s because they’re thousands of years old, as the blood testifies to and as the Bible book of Genesis plainly says.

Further Reading

Cosmos 2014

I’ve been watching the 2014 Cosmos mini-series on Netflix and have to say, once you get past the evolutionary propaganda, it’s a really well-made, very polished and cleverly produced look at Earth’s history.

The blatant focus on forcing the evolutionary belief over the scientific look at nature is pretty bad but once you get past it you can take it as a really good romp through scientific history including animated biographies of all the major philosophers and scientists.

AiG has a write up on each episode in case you’re looking for something to counter the evolutionism in the show:

If I can find it I’ll probably watch the original Carl Sagan Cosmos, as well.

We have to go back

I just got done watching the entire series of Lost on Netflix for the second time. What a trip. What story telling. This time around things came a little bit easier. I more often had “aha!” moments and more than a few head-nods to the writer’s foreshadowing. For having gone as long as it did, for having kept almost all of its cast members the entire time, for having a grand story arch they stuck to and finished, and for the sheer magnitude of the undertaking, I can’t think of a better television series. Believe me, I’m a Browncoat, so you can take that to the bank. ;) So, if we have to go back, here are my main take-aways from the show’s six-year run…*spoiler warning*

Continue reading “We have to go back”

Faith Shaking Scientific Discoveries (Or Not)

Take-away: You know all those big big scientific discoveries that seem to shake your faith just a little bit more each time, if you’re being honest? Actually, they usually end up on the cutting room floor. Just wait a bit, and watch some Christian sources like AIG, CMI, or ICR, and you’ll see these claims often be completely retracted or significantly eviscerated. But you won’t usually find the mainstream media covering this because after all we-were-wrongs aren’t all that exciting. Rest assured all science inevitably, eventually, ends up agreeing with the Bible. Here are just a few of the big discoveries that later turned out to be largely hype…

Continue reading “Faith Shaking Scientific Discoveries (Or Not)”

Why is there something rather than nothing?

Check out this long-winded philosophical meandering journey to all places except the question it purports to ask: Nothingness (Why is there something rather than nothing?) I’m blown away at the ability of scientists and philosophers to finagle their way around the question. All your philosophical and scientific sounding rabbit holes are transparent – they do nothing to dissuade the honesty of the original question. We, as citizens of mankind, owe it to ourselves to tackle this question head on.

Defining Science

When people talk about science, they infer and imply many things. They may be referring to scientists, the scientific method, the popularly accepted ideas of the day, or any number of perceptions about what constitutes “science” these days. Many times, I talk about science in the context of the act of scientific inquiry, that is, the act of applying our five natural senses, taste, touch, smell, sight and sound, or technological extensions of those senses, in order to inquire about world around us. These are the only tools acceptable to science and there are inherent limits in their application which prohibit them from tackling some very important questions.

When people talk about science, they infer and imply many things. They may be referring to scientists, the scientific method, the popularly accepted ideas of the day, or any number of perceptions about what constitutes “science” these days. Many times, I talk about science in the context of the act of scientific inquiry, that is, the act of applying our five natural senses, taste, touch, smell, sight and sound, or technological extensions of those senses, in order to inquire about world around us. These are the only tools acceptable to science and there are inherent limits in their application which prohibit them from tackling some very important questions.

The tools, our senses, were granted us and operate according to the laws of the environment in which they exist. That is, your eyes see the visible light of energy. You can touch matter. You can smell the product of chemical reactions. Tying all these things together is the environment in which they exist. For God to have created our reality, he must have existed outside of it. Or, you might think of it as one bubble, the universe, existing inside another, bigger bubble, God’s universe. Either way, it still holds that the tools of science can not be assumed to apply to observing or experimenting on that which is outside of our bubble.

This is what I often allude to in discussions about origins. This is, also, what should cause you to reconsider what you are told by popular science. There is no empirical way to prove the non-existence of God, though, it seems, people like Hawking and Dawkins try hard to do so.

The next step in this argument is to debate whether it is more or less illogical to believe in an omni-present God or an omni-present material reality (universe; multi-verse; big bang repeating cycle; etc). I say “illogical” because, according to the laws of this existence, all effects have a cause, and an ever-existing God and an ever-existing reality have no initial cause hence they appear illogical.

Notice, also, that you are now no longer debating in the realm of logic but in the realm of the illogical: Whose premise is less illogical than whose? This should prompt you to pause and think a little bit. What you will discover is that the former must cease to reason according to the laws of his reality and begin to reason under a new set of conditions. The latter, however, still reasons according to the laws of his reality.

There comes a point in all of this when one needs to reconsider starting assumptions. The one who finds the limit of his own tools and reaches beyond discovers new insights while the one who refuses to acknowledge these limits spins around and around in his own concentric series of smaller and smaller circles of reasoning.

Isaac Newton: Crazy man!

I’ve just finished reading Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time. It’s a great read and has really firmed up some ideas on physics I’ve had for a long time. But I thought I’d paste this exert here as it’s a really crazy summary of Isaac Newton’s life. It’s a short biography at the back of A Brief History of Time. I’m always surprised seeing people act so childishly. I hope Newton was happy acting like an idiot.

Update 2012-05-20: Other historical sources don’t seem to agree with Hawking’s short biography of Isaac Newton and Hawking certainly has his own biases. Readers should be aware that Hawking’s biography is certainly not completely objective. As always, the truth seems to lie somewhere in the middle of two extremes.

I’ve just finished reading Stephen Hawking‘s A Brief History of Time. It’s a great read and has really firmed up some ideas on physics I’ve had for a long time. But I thought I’d paste this excerpt here as it’s a really crazy summary of Isaac Newton’s life. It’s a short biography at the back of A Brief History of Time. I’m always surprised seeing people act so childishly. I hope Newton was happy acting like an idiot.

Isaac Newton was not a pleasant man. His relations with other academics were notorious, with most of his later life spent embroiled in heated disputes. Following publication of Principia Mathematica – surely the most influential book ever written in Physics – Newton had risen rapidly into public prominence. He was appointed president of the Royal Society and became the first scientist ever to be knighted.

Newton soon clashed with the Astronomer Royal, John Flamsteed, who had earlier provided Newton with much needed data for Principia, but was now withholding information that Newton wanted. Newton would not take no for an answer; he had himself appointed to the governing body of the Royal Observatory and then tried to force immediate publication of the data. Eventually he arranged for Flamsteed’s work to be seized and prepared for publication by Flamsteed’s mortal enemy, Edmond Halley. But Flamsteed took the case to court and, in the nick of time, won a court order preventing distribution of the stolen work. Newton was incensed and sought his revenge by systematically deleting all references to Flamsteed in later editions of Principia.

A more serious dispute arose with the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz. Both Leibniz and Newton had independently developed a branch of mathematics called Calculus, which underlies most of modern physics. Although we now know that Newton discovered Calculus years before Leibniz, he published his work much later. A major row ensued over who had been first, with scientists vigorously defending both contenders. It is remarkable, however, that most of the articles appearing in defense of Newton were originally written by his own hand – and only published in the name of friends! As the row grew, Leibniz made the mistake of appealing to the Royal Society to resolve the dispute. Newton, as president, appointed an “impartial” committee to investigate, coincidentally consisting entirely of Newton’s friends! But that was not all: Newton then wrote the committee’s report himself and had the Royal Society publish it, officially accusing Leibniz of plagiarism. Still unsatisfied, he then wrote an anonymous review of the report in the Royal Society’s own periodical. Following the death of Leibniz, Newton is reported to have declared that he had taken great satisfaction in “breaking Leibniz’ heart”.

During the period of these two disputes, Newton had already left Cambridge and academe. He had been active in anti-Catholic politics at Cambridge, and later in Parliament, and was rewarded eventually with the lucrative post of Warden of the Royal Mint. Here he used his talents for deviousness and vitriol in a more socially acceptable way, successfully conducting a major campaign against counterfeiting, even sending several men to their death on the gallows.

− Stephen W. Hawking, A Brief History of Time

The foundations of the Building are only as strong as the foundations of the Builders

My mother past away last month and since then we’ve had a number of occasions to reflect on her passion for creation – the literal intepretation of the Book of Genesis as it relates the six-day creation of the heavens and the earth.

My mother past away last month and since then we’ve had a number of occasions to reflect on her passion for creation – the literal intepretation of the Book of Genesis as it relates to the six-day creation of the heavens and the earth.

All her stuff in the basement which she’d gather together to put on exhibits at churches or in classes. At her funeral where we setup these things so that visitors could know about her passion. And a creation seminar weekend at Cannington Baptist Church where gifted speaker Calvin Smith taught us many fascinating truths of science regarding the history of the earth. The weekend was lovingly dedicated to Donna in light of her passion for creation. We wholeheartedly thank them for their thoughtfulness and kindness towards us.

Because of all this exposure, though, I’ve really been hit a number of times just how serious it is for believers to doubt the creation account in Genesis. Doubt and skepticism are healthy but only when they lead to uncovering the truth.

Each creation organization that I’m aware of has the same reason for doing what they do: They believe that to contradict Genesis, being the inspired Word of God, is to erode the very foundation of the totality of the faith. Creation Ministries International, for example, entitle their writing on this issue “Genesis—the seedbed of all Christian doctrine.”

According to stats, most Christian youth who go to secular post-secondary institutions will lose their faith because of the onslaught of ideas contradictory to their faith. If their faith can’t stand against apparent flaws, then what good is the faith? Who can blame them for leaving their faith behind. At best, who can blame them for compartmentalizing or halfheartedly living out their faith.

But there are answers. Answers In Genesis is another organization dedicated to teaching the truths of the creation account. Their article regarding the need for teaching creation is entitled “Creation: Why it matters.

Creation absolutely matters. God has Genesis right. He really did create the heavens and the earth in six days. If he said so and he really didn’t, then what else is really true in the bible? Your entire faith’s foundation begins at Genesis 1:1:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Wooly mammoth may have gone extinct more recently than thought

Wooly mammoth may have gone extinct more recently than thought

Wooly Mammoth DNA Yields Surprising Secret

This is a relatively minor change in understanding of wooly mammoth’s extinction from 12,500 years ago to around 7500 years ago.

This is just another one of those discoveries that catch my eye in the media because ever more and more we’re discovering the long time frames of evolution are being reconsidered. Wooly mammoths nearly within recorded history, you say? I’m confident we’ll soon discover man did indeed walk with dinosaurs.