MENU

Museum News

Giant Human Fossil Foot Prints

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 Shortchanges Intelligent Design

December 13th, 2007

Science, Intelligent Design and Self Imposed Limitations

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? 

Does the U.S. Have 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.

Are Creationists are “Idiots”?

November 19th, 2007

Origins “Hot Potato” and Creationists are “Idiots”

One very interesting thing to notice in the origins issue is the tremendous volatility of this 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?”