MENU

Museum News

A.D. 1440 Vinland Map Vindicated!

February 3rd, 2010

Vinland Map Version_1_333kb In school, we were taught Christopher Columbus discovered America in 1492.  However many evidences have been presented  attempting  to dethrone the traveling Italians honor.

The “anomalous” american discoveries vying to contradict and prove of an earlier eastern arrival such as ancient stone works, mysterious coins with dates before his arrival, Mid-West Egyptian like hieroglyphics etched in stone did not possess the strength of argument to overturn such a deeply held prized distinction…until mid 2009.

The Vinland map has been known since 1957. Written on parchment and ink, this map shows the outlines of Europe and parts of Africa. However as you scan to the west your eye easily recognizes Iceland and a bit more to the left and there is Greenland. But keep traveling across the ocean what do we see…New Foundland?  What is a section of North America doing on a map carbon dated at 1440?  That’s a half a century before the Queen gave Chris the green light for his own gig.

The latest analysis completed by the Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts announced July 17, 2009 declared the map is real, not a hoax. That may make some uncomfortable as one significant piece of history would need to be rewritten. This map adds another piece of evidence that the Vikings were perhaps the first to Discover America as early as 1000 A.D.

What this all means is not all the pieces of the anthropological puzzle have been discovered nor have they been assembled without the possibility of having to go back and rewrite history. Time will tell it’s tale, if we let it.

“Scientific” 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. So we may find soil, yes, even water perhaps, but no life. There are no half baked “in the beginning” metaphorically evolutionary “genesises” going on in our solar system. Not even a exo-microbe will be discovered is my creationist, arm-chair, scientific prediction.

That said, I do believe based on a few passages in the scriptures, that there are planets with entire complete eco-systems with beings similar to us throughout the universe that God created. But there’re not close enough in proximity for us to interface with.

Should this prediction be found correct, does this prove the Bible is true?  No, however, let it be known that a young earth creationist has made a “scientific” prediction based on a young earth creationist model of how life got here and how it is sustained.

Again, simply put “Mars does not have life.”

John F. Adolfi.

5/1/2018 update…10 years later and still no proof of life on Mars…because there is none.

 

Noah’s Ark ((FOUND)) by the Chinese…or Has it?

February 17th, 2008

The purported discovery of the 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 Ark.

Soon after this announcement photographic evidence surfaced showing the Chinese supposedly sitting inside a wood beam room alleging that is was ark and too photos of the Arks brown wood exterior.

Fast forward May 1st 2018. We believe since the original announcement 14 years ago there has been nothing to support such a claim. We are not sure if the group staged this for more donations or if someone in the Ararat region set up an elaborate money making prank. Either way the Ark has not been discovered.

What lead up to this discovery was truly amazing. And chronicled in the rare, Chinese import titled Days of Noah. Shortly after this was released the “discovery of Noah’s Ark was announced. This 2 hours DVD is incredible. You’ll see rare footage and a telling of the Noah’s Ark hunt like no other.

We will report on this matter with future updates. 

Ben Steins NEW Intelligent Design Documentary

January 18th, 2008

expelled-250x250.jpgAn unusual documentary exposes 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 without oppression. “Not so!” states the often vehement doctors of science. Intelligent Design, in their mind, breathes of God, and that is unthinkable.

So why are good, honest hard working Americans getting EXPELLED?  Click here and grab  hold of our last DVD copy we have in our museum store and find out. It will leave you dumbfounded. And that is a good thing.

Giant Human Fossil 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:
A.) Modern man is much older than we have thought

B.) 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 ?

What is “Admissible Evidence” for a Hypothesis…?

December 21st, 2007

We 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 in science are questionable or unintentionally biased.

But let’s be fair. Scientists are proud of science being a testable, provable, repeatable process of learning; as 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 and 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, Intelligent Design and its Self Imposed Limitations

December 13th, 2007

Kansas 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.

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 theoretically should operate?

Does a scientist think up a hypothesis out of the blue and then search for facts innocently, unbiasedly, with no pre-conception based on the love of the truth?   Or…does an evolutionist begin with a certain bias, trying to keep his/her grant funding and then look for evidences to support those biases in the form of “facts” to fit a certain agenda?

Ask yourself honestly.  Is there any reason why science shouldn’t be capable of leading us to the best explanation…whatever that may be?  I say again…Whatever it may be? 

Do we have in this County – Equality of Beliefs?

November 19th, 2007

The question often raised is: Should Evolution and Creation get equal airtime in the schools? And in many people’s mind, the choice seems to be “No! Because one science and the other fairy tales?” they defend their answer with. That is a fair question and one the Lost World Museum would like to weigh in on.

We feel strongly that each person should have the right to make up their own mind on the question of origins without ridicule. 

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….Interpretation of the evidence.  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.

Now imagine a 3 column work sheet. First you have the fact column, on the left side as a column you have a creationist interpretation, and of the right and 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 they could answer it with: as a result of thousands of years of an earth suffering the results of sin. And the creationist should be able to say this without ridicule.  

In this example BOTH evolutionists and Creationist have left the middle fact column in order to spin (Interpret) the fact column their way. Neither should be on stronger footing.  There are no facts or evidence that could ever prove either philosophy 100%. There is only interpretation of those evidences,  and both sides should be welcome to their opinion.

The Origins “Hot Potato” and Creationists are “Idiots”

November 19th, 2007

One very interesting thing to notice in the origins issue is the tremendous volatility of the topic. The very existence of such hostility indicates what???  I will leave it you to postulate why it is that everyone is so unwilling to let the other side think the way they do.  But does one side seem to have more of a need to suppress the other? Is one side hotter under the collar than the other? And if so why?

Why can’t this issue be comparable to: “What kind of ice cream do you like? I like chocolate. Oh, I prefer strawberry.” Why is it that when I Google “Creationists are Idiots“ that the’re no lack for responses. But when I google “Evolutionists are idiots“…nothing?

By NO means am I saying that there are not hotheaded creationists.  I have seen at least one for myself and it’s never pretty when someone belittles another.   But from even a cursory examination, there seems a weighted tendency here.

One such website says, “But creationism is for idiots, a pathetic, blinkered, morally and intellectually bankrupt substitution for thought, one that presents a sad, limited view of the universe.”

Another more polite website says, “Despite massive scientific corroboration for evolution, roughly half of all Americans believe that God created humans within the last 10,000 years.  This widespread refusal to accept evolution can drive some academics into a fury. I’ve heard biologists call anti-evolutionists “idiots,” “lunatics”…. and worse. But the question remains: How do we explain the mass public’s stubborn resistance to Darwinism?”

This is not an article to tell you how or what to think why there is such volatility within this topic. I simply want you to look for it next time you enter or observe a “debate” between the philosophies.  And ask yourself, no matter what your belief, “Why does what the other person says, matter so much to me?”

World Largest Mastodon is “Lone Star”

December 5th, 2006

Unearthed from a Texan gravel bed in 2000 and painstakingly restored by bone digger Joe Taylor of the Mount Blanco Museum This creature is huge!  And just to give you an idea how massive this prehistoric mammal was –  imagine an elephant of today. About 9-10 feet at the shoulder 4-6 tons.

Ok get ready to compare this record breaking pacaderm at 14 feet at the shoulder, 10-12 tons and 33 feet long from its 10 foot long tusks to tail. That is one big beast that scientists say roamed all over the United States prior to its extinction.

Next time you walk past 75 State St. in the village of Phoenix, NY, take a peek into the large picture window and get ready for a breath-taking surprise.