Museum News

Media Posts on the Chupacabra Exhibit

October 7th, 2009

Chupa BannerChupa-mania is a slow growth process here in the northeast. The hispanic community has  had chupa-fever for 3 decades and in the  southwest especially Texas is a hot bed of carcasses and sightings of these strange animals.

Media sources are picking up on the fact that the Smithsonion does not have the worlds first taxidermy “chupacabra”. As the remains are about to undergo 600 hours of extensive testing next week, the good people of Central N.Y. are beginning to hear, for the first time, that  hard to pronounce word in spanish translated into english as “goat-sucker”…Chupacabra.

In an attempt to create a small abstract of the media coverage into the mysterious mammal I’m including the links here.

Syracuse Post Standard September 25th, 2009

FOX NEWS Story October 19, 2009

The Chupacabra Exhibit is currently running till October 31st, 2009.

Museum Opens This Sunday the 4th at 4PM for Exclusive Engagement

October 2nd, 2009

8x11

Blanco Texas Chupacabra finds new home at the Museum

September 25th, 2009

 On September 2, 2009 my eyes and perhaps yours too were glued to our TV and computer screens.  The announcement was unsettling, another Texan “chupacabra” had surfaced. But this time the remains were stuffed and mounted instead of being thrown out or deteriorating in some science lab never to be seen again.

The back story goes like this. In July 2009 a “rodent” was becoming a nuisance in a Rosenberg, Texas man’s barn. A taxidermy student attempting to help his cousin out set a trap to poison the offending critter. The next morning a sleek, grey, hairless dog-like mammal lay motionless near the fatal concoction.

Some time passes and the student asks his taxidermy instructor, Jerry Ayer if he would trade some lessons at his Blanco Texas Taxidermy school for this frozen carcass.  Ayer agreed.

Now for the front story.  Ayer contacted his local TV station KSAT.  Just 90 seconds of television journalism launched this story into the stratosphere resulting in a world-wide media frenzy that forced him to shut his school for 2 weeks before he could recover.  100 radio interviews invitations, a death threat, hundreds of uninvited guests, tissue sample requests and among the private collectors and museums vying for the mount, the Lost World Museum made an offer and got it.  Mr. Ayer told me we were the most enthusiastic of the bunch in desiring to display this beast to the world.

There is more of the story to tell.  During the next few weeks we will be unfolding the events as they happen.  The important thing for right now is the museum’s ability to open its doors for a limited engagement during the month of October.  Every Sunday, Mon. and Tues. in October from 4PM to 8PM the museum will exhibit this chupacabra to the public. After which we will close temporarily and add all the fossils, artifacts and other non Chupacabra displays to reopen officially in a few months.

Therefore the museum invites everyone to this special preview to help solve this biological puzzle.  Is this “chupacabra” really a wolf, a coyote, a mange dog or a new species? What do you think? Have you seen one of these and know what it is? We want to know.  No conclusions have been made in cement. Jerry Ayer is unsure and said two veterinarians upon examining the creature scratched their heads, not a clue.  We are committed to add to the growing body of evidence that scientists need to figure this mystery out proper.

Creationist predicts, “No life on Mars.”

June 26th, 2008

For more than 30 years one robotic machine after another have landed to explore the rusty martian surface trying to unlock its geological mysteries and solve NASA’s perplexing questions: Can Mars support life? And more importantly: Is there life on the red planet? Recently in the news, NASA announced that salt and other akaline minerals have been discovered that could in fact support life. But will NASA find life…ever?

Before we go any further let me say that Evolutionists criticize Creationists for not using their unique faith based understanding of science to make predictions.  It is true that the evolutionary model does predict and it seems that many of their predictions come “true.” But I would like to take this opportunity, as a creationist, to make my own prediction regarding life on Mars. Allow me first to qualify my prediction.

My prediction is based on the Word of God.  I’m basing my prediction on biblical references that state God alone is life and God alone creates life and places life where He may. That Earth is the only planet that God created life in the solar system. Therefore not on the moon or Venus or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn will we find life.  God does not create life by starting things off with some microbes or algae. His distinctive signature is the ability to get it right the first time with all the complexity, interdependent systems and recycling mechanisms necessary for an entire world of living things to stay in balance and thrive.  Therefore, as hard as NASA tries to find life on Mars, my prediction is NO life will be found on Mars. There are probably beings throughout the universe that God has created since He obviously desires and enjoys companionship. So we may find soil. Yes, even water perhaps, but no life.  Not even a Exo-microbe.

Should my perdiction come true, does this prove the Bible is true? No, however, let it be known that this young earth creationist made a prediction based on his understanding of the Biblical model of how life got here and how it is sustained.  Again, simply put “Mars does not have life.” You can quote me.

John F. Adolfi.

11/10/2017 update… 9 years later and still no proof of life on Mars because there is none.

 

Chinese believe they found Noah’s Ark

February 17th, 2008

4.jpgThe purported remains of Noah’s ark have surfaced once again and a Chinese Christian Ministry exploring the region of Mount Ararat, Turkey since 2004 believes they have found petrified wood that maybe Noah’s

Days of Noah DVD.jpg

Watch the two minute video here on Youtube. See what has led up to this discovery in the rare two hour documentary Days of Noah.

Ben Steins NEW Intelligent Design Documentary

January 18th, 2008

expelled-250x250.jpgThis February an unusual documentary will expose the private censure of schoolteachers that dare to criticize Evolution. How long could Evolution supporters suppress those who dare to tread on their narrow Darwinist territory? Could it be that the time is come for a public outcry? A movement for equality is making its theatrical rounds before hitting our local video stores, in Ben Stein EXPELLED No Intelligence Allowed.

Stein is tired of intelligent men and women getting fired or made to leave educational institutions because of their belief in I.D. (Intelligent Design) theory. Stein openly admits that I.D. might be false. But since Evolutionists have not soundly filled in some major gaps in their theory, Stein believes there is room for everyone to place their origin theory cards on the academic table with out oppression. Not so states the often vehement doctor of science. Intelligent Design, in their mind, breathes of God, and that is unthinkable.

So why are good, honest hard working Americans getting EXPELLED?

Giant Fossil Human Foot Prints: A Colossal Mystery.

January 4th, 2008

Pinkoski_Giant_Footprints06.jpgIn 1976 famed anthropologist Mary Leaky discovered 70 human footprints in stone in Tanzania known as the Laetoli tracks. Leaky felt they looked like they were made by modern human beings, but that created a problem. The depressions left by our ancestors were in a stratum dated at 3.6 million years. No modern human could have laid down that track since we were not around yet according to evolution.

What happens when evidence doesn’t support a theory?

In spite of Mary Leaky’s declaration of a modern look to the prints, notice what happens when evidence seems to contradict the evolutionary model. Enter the scientists, scrutinizing the prints (as they should) but looking for an alternative explanation one that will.  Some said the prints resembled a humanoid like creature,. Others thought the prints were from another creature altogether. In the end they concluded that a type of Lucy – half man, half monkey like being were responsible for these tracks. Phew! Evolution was safe again – end of story.

But could these several million year old imprints in stone simply be as they appear – from a modern human? To the scientific community it’s unthinkable and unacceptable. Why? Because they would have to conclude that…

either modern man is much older than we have thought or that our dating techniques are faulty. Either way, there is a big problem for scientists. So…”interpretation of the evidence” then becomes an important tool that often comes to their rescue.

This is not the first set of prints that have attempted to shake up the evolutionary apple cart. The Taylor Track, Burdick Track, Zapata Track and more all are begging to dethrone evolutions iron grip on the answer to the human origins question  “How did we arrive to where we are today?” Did we evolve over millions of years through environmental pressures and positive mutations? Were our ancestors alien like creatures from outer space, with advanced genetics and technology who assisted our race? Or are we the product of special creation as outlined in Genesis? These footprints stamped in time help solve this ancient mystery. Read the rest of this entry ?

Science and Admissible Evidence for a Hypothesis

December 21st, 2007

White_peacock.jpgLockheed_SR-71_Blackbird plane.jpgFerrari.jpgWe noticed last time that science is unwilling to allow for an intelligent designer no matter where the facts are leading. I say unwilling rather than unable because I think the rules that govern the permissibility of evidence are questionable or unintentionally biased.

But let’s be fair. Scientists are proud of science being a testable, provable, repeatable process of learning; as well we all should be. And evolutionists would say that it is necessary to exclude anything other than natural explanations precisely because they are not provable and testable. But the question then arises, what exactly does it mean to be provable or testable?

Take gravity  something we can’t see. I can drop a set of keys and it will always go down. Is that what makes it provable? Or is it because I can quantify its speed as it falls? Is that what makes it testable? Why can’t things we can see, such as the widespread existence of symmetry, function as evidence? Do I have to measure the frequency of it to legitimize it? What governs the admissibility of it as evidence? Why should it be denied as evidence when it never used to be?

If I wanted to determine if a ship, car or plane (something we’ll pretend none of us has ever seen) was designed or had evolved, it would seem reasonable to include the following observations or facts:

  • It has a complex system to convert fuel to energy.
  • It needs functioning almost frictionless, symmetrical propeller, wheel or wing assemblies.
  • They are aerodynamically fit for the environment they use.
  • Perfectly fitting seats (seemingly designed for a human) in a beautiful, red Lamborghini or the luxurious housing area of sleek yacht….

So let’s compare that with what we see in the animal kingdom; perhaps a fish, cheetah or a parrot. We very quickly see that the same facts that convince us that the mechanical object was designed are seen in the animals.

  • It has a complex system to convert fuel to energy.
  • It needs functioning almost frictionless, symmetrical fins, leg or wing assemblies.
  • They are aerodynamically fit for the environment they use.
  • Peacocks, swans, leopards, polar bears, colorful fish on a stunning reef.

From one type of animal to another, we see beauty, grace, strength, and suitability to their environment, designs, symmetry and patterns. Now tell me again why these facts are not admissible as evidence that these living objects were designed? Why can’t science let facts lead us to whatever hypothesis seems the most logical? Why is it logical to deduce that a complex, aerodynamically perfect jet fighter was designed by an intelligent being and the living version of a hawk, is not?

Science and its Limitations

December 13th, 2007

DNAKansas State University immunologist Scott Todd said, “Even if all the facts point to an intelligent designer, such a hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.” Todd S.C., correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999.

It is really interesting that he not going to accept an intelligent designer no matter what the facts say. And that is science. But how can it be that there is an instance where Facts don’t count?   I am all for people having the right to choose how to interpret facts, but something about that seems skewed. And everyone should definitely be aware that this is what is going on in science.  Or should I say that this is how evolutionists say science works? But the fact remains that you can show thousands of examples of design, patterns, symmetry, beauty, symbiosis, and many other types of evidence and it simply will be rejected out of hand because the facts don’t count it has to be explained by natural causes.

The question that comes to my mind is, shouldn’t Science be the search for any true explanation? Why does it HAVE to exclude an intelligent designer? Aren’t we supposed to follow the evidence where it leads? Just because we don’t like where it’s leading, does that give us the right to reject a theory that fits the facts well? Something seems awful fishy here. Do I smell human bias? Doesn’t this seem to contradict how science normally always works? You make a hypothesis and look for facts or you look at facts and develop a hypothesis to explain it?  Ask yourself honestly. Is there any reason why science shouldn’t be capable of leading us to the best explanation whatever that may be?

Stay tuned for next weeks look at Science and Hypotheses

Equality of Beliefs

November 19th, 2007

The JourneyThe question often raised is: Should Evolution and Creation get equal airtime in the schools? And in many peoples mind, the choice seems to be no because of the way the choices are portrayed. But is one science and the other fairytales? That is a fair question and one the Lost World Museum would like to weigh in on.

We feel strongly that each person should be able to make up their own mind on the question of origins without ridicule and that much more education needs to take place to allow everyone to understand the arguments and to clear up misrepresentations on both sides. In order to do that we are committed to placing an evolutionist and creationist interpretation next to every artifact we display.

Understanding the Arguments

Recently I watched a creationist and evolutionist in a debate and one thing seems to be happening so consistently that no one even realizes it. It happens with every issue argued about between creationists and evolutionists, but here’s one example:

The evolutionist said that we have back problems because we used to walk on all fours. And although I can’t remember the creationist’s response, this is enough to show what is happening.

There should be 3 columns:a fact column, a creationist interpretation, and an evolutionist interpretation.

The fact is that many people have back problems. Now an evolutionist should have the right to postulate that people have back problems because we used to walk on all fours, but it should be acknowledged that they have left the fact column.  And a creationist should have just the same right to say that many people have back problems because we are overweight, lazy and have a lifestyle that is not conducive to healthy backs OR to say it is the result of thousands of years of an earth suffering the results of sin – without ridicule. BOTH have left the fact column in order to spin it their way. Neither should be on stronger footing.

When people don’t realize that is being done, then people are left thinking that their choices are fairytales or science.   But there really is science, evolution and creationism.   There are no facts or evidence that could ever prove either one. There is only interpretation and both sides should be welcome to do it to their hearts content.