Free Republic 4th Quarter Fundraising Target: $85,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $25,245
29%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 29% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by kimtom

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Arab and Muslim states question Israelís right to defend itself at UNHRC

    09/23/2014 6:38:02 AM PDT · 9 of 12
    kimtom to Olog-hai

    One day this argument will be used for Patriots of USA

  • U.S. strikes Khorasan Group in Syria, which posed 'imminent' threat to West

    09/23/2014 6:33:06 AM PDT · 15 of 16
    kimtom to winoneforthegipper

    It is an excuse to wipe out Syrian allies and moderate muslims.

  • Bill Berry: Give cops the firepower to outgun the bad guys

    09/23/2014 6:31:32 AM PDT · 37 of 55
    kimtom to rellimpank

    cops are NOT killed by law abiding citizens.

  • Would You Follow President Obama Into Battle?

    09/23/2014 6:29:38 AM PDT · 24 of 46
    kimtom to AJFavish

    A Muslim tries to avoid war with fellow believers...

    just saying......

  • Rangel: Itís Time for a War Tax and a Reinstated Draft (yes, this again)

    09/23/2014 6:26:34 AM PDT · 9 of 39
    kimtom to Olog-hai

    I thought the war tax from wwI and wwII are still in effect!!??

    (not to mention (Vietnam)

  • Ann Coulter's 'Idiotic' Response to Christian Missions

    08/08/2014 9:35:33 AM PDT · 50 of 99
    kimtom to ronniesgal

    he felt compelled to go there,

    where do you go??

  • Ann Coulter's 'Idiotic' Response to Christian Missions

    08/08/2014 9:33:53 AM PDT · 49 of 99
    kimtom to ansel12

    good post

  • Ann Coulter's 'Idiotic' Response to Christian Missions

    08/08/2014 9:32:40 AM PDT · 47 of 99
    kimtom to Rhinoman

    The people he helped save would disagree.

    -couch potato

  • Second Look Causes Scientist to Reverse Dino-Bird Claim

    07/18/2014 9:53:38 AM PDT · 27 of 36
    kimtom to fishtank

    Designed To Fly

    by Jerry Fausz, Ph.D.

    [EDITOR’S NOTE: The following article was written by A.P. staff scientist Dr. Fausz, who holds a Ph.D. in Aerospace Engineering from Georgia Tech and serves as liaison to the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.]

    I have a wonderful story to tell you—a story that, in some respects, out rivals the Arabian Nights fables.... God in his great mercy has permitted me to be, at least somewhat, instrumental in ushering in and introducing to the great wide world an invention that may outrank the electric cars, the automobiles, and all other methods of travel.... I am now going to tell you something of two...boys.... Their names are Orville and Wilbur Wright, of Dayton, Ohio.... These two, perhaps by accident, or may be as a matter of taste, began studying the flights of birds and insects.... They not only studied nature, but they procured the best books, and I think I may say all the papers, the world contains on this subject.... These boys (they are men now), instead of spending their summer vacation with crowds, and with such crowds as are often questionable, as so many do, went away by themselves to a desert place by the seacoast.... With a gliding machine made of sticks and cloth they learned to glide and soar from the top of a hill to the bottom; and by making not only hundreds but more than a thousand experiments, they became so proficient in guiding these gliding machines that they could sail like a bird, and control its movements up and down as well as sidewise.... When they became experts they brought in, as they had planned to do, a gasoline engine to furnish power, and made a little success with their apparatus before winter set.... At first they went only a few hundred feet; and as the opportunity for practice in guiding and controlling it was only a few seconds at a time, their progress was necessarily very slow.... This work, mind you, was all new. Nobody living could give them any advice. It was like exploring a new and unknown domain.... Other experiments had to be made in turning from right to left; and, to make the matter short, it was my privilege, on the 20th day of September, 1904, to see the first successful trip on an air-ship, without a balloon to sustain it, that the world has ever made, that is, to turn the corners and come back to the starting point.... [T]o me the sight of a machine like the one I have pictured, with its white canvas planes and rudders subject to human control, is one of the grandest and most inspiring sights I have ever seen on earth; and when you see one of these graceful crafts sailing over your head, and possibly over your home, as I expect you will in the near future, see if you don’t agree with me that the flying machine is one of God’s most gracious and precious gifts (Root, 1905).

    Photograph of the Wright brothers’ historic first flight at the moment of takeoff

    Credit: Library of Congress, LC-W861-35

    The sense of wonder expressed by Mr. Amos Ives Root at witnessing success in the Wright brothers’ struggle to achieve flight may be difficult to fathom. Air travel has become so commonplace in our society, the sight of modern flying machines “sailing over” our heads and homes catches our attention only for a moment, if at all. Though the first public account of the Wrights’ achievement was reported only in a humble beekeeping journal and drew little public notice, the invention described here led to nothing less than a revolution in transportation, a complete transformation in military strategy and tactics, and ultimately, the technological impetus to reach not only for the skies, but for the stars. And it all began, as Mr. Root notes, with “studying the flights of birds and insects.”

    The Wright brothers’ methodical research and testing formally established the discipline of aeronautical engineering, but they were not the first aeronautical engineers. In fact, there were many, three of whom were Sir George Cayley, Otto Lilienthal and Samuel P. Langley. The Englishman Cayley, described as the “Father of Aerial Navigation,” like the Wrights, experimented with gliders and tested the lift characteristics of airfoils (wing cross-sections). Cayley’s airfoil testing apparatus, however, moved the airfoil rotationally which, after a few turns of the mechanism, caused the surrounding air to rotate with it, significantly decreasing the lift and reducing the accuracy of the measurements (Anderson, 1989, pp. 6-12). The Wright brothers used wind tunnels for airfoil testing, which is the preferred testing method even today (though modern wind tunnels generally are much larger).

    Otto Lilienthal could be considered the world’s first hang glider expert, due to the way his gliders were configured and operated. Lilienthal, like Cayley, used a rotational device to measure aerodynamic forces on airfoils. He died in 1896 when the glider he was flying hit a gust of wind that pitched the nose of the vehicle upward causing it to stall, or lose lift, and plummet to the ground (Anderson, pp. 17-19). Hearing of this accident, the Wright brothers decided to put the “elevator” (control surface that regulates vehicle pitch) on the front of their flying machine. The elevator on most modern aircraft is at the rear, just below the vertical tail fin.

    Samuel Pierpont Langley was contemporary with the Wright brothers, serving at that time as secretary of the Smithsonian Institute. Langley was one of the first to experiment with powered flight, successfully flying two small, unmanned vehicles—outfitted with steam engines—that he called aerodromes. When the Department of War commissioned him to develop a manned air vehicle, he decided to switch to a gasoline engine, which he attached to a larger version of one of his aerodromes. Unfortunately, the two test flights attempted by Langley with his manned aerodrome were miserable failures. The second of these failures occurred on December 8, 1903, just nine days prior to the Wright brothers’ first flight at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina (Anderson, pp. 21-26).

    It is notable that all of these pioneers of aviation shared a fascination with the observation and study of flying creatures. Consider the following conversation with Samuel Langley, as recalled by Charles Manly, who piloted Langley’s ill-fated experiments:

    I here asked Mr. Langley what first attracted his attention to aerial navigation. “I can’t tell when I was not interested in it,” he replied. “I used to watch the birds flying when I was a boy and to wonder what kept them up.... It finally occurred to me that there must be something in the condition of the air which the soaring birds instinctively understood, but which we do not” (Manly, 1915, Image 62).

    In 1900, Wilbur Wright wrote a 17-page letter to Octave Chanute, a prominent mechanical engineer who, like Lilienthal, experimented with hang gliders. In this letter, Wilbur outlined the program of aeronautical research that he and his brother were about to undertake. He began the letter with a discussion of his affinity for flight and flying creatures, as follows:

    Dear Sir:

    For some years I have been afflicted with the belief that flight is possible to man.... My general ideas of the subject are similar [to] those held by most practical experimenters, to wit: that what is chiefly needed is skill rather than machinery. The flight of the buzzard and similar sailors is a convincing demonstration of the value of skill, and the partial needlessness of motors. It is possible to fly without motors, but not without knowledge & skill. This I conceive to be fortunate, for man, by reason of his greater intellect, can more reasonably hope to equal birds in knowledge, than to equal nature in the perfection of her machinery (Wright, 1900, Image 1, emp. added).

    These and numerous other references to bird observations attest to the fact that birds were a dominant source of inspiration for these early aeronautical researchers.

    In fact, mankind has observed birds and dreamed of flight throughout recorded history, as evidenced by the ancient Greek myth of Daedalus and Icarus. Daedalus is said to have fashioned wings of wax and bird feathers so that he and his son, Icarus, could escape imprisonment on the isle of Crete. The legend says that Icarus, in spite of his father’s warnings, flew too close to the sun, the wax in his wings melted and he perished in the Mediterranean Sea below. While this story is fictional, it certainly reflects the imaginative desire of its author to “take to the air” as a bird. As John D. Anderson, Jr., stated in his foundational text on the aerodynamics of flight: “All early thinking of human flight centered on the imitation of birds” (1989, p. 3). Having no flying experience, it is only natural that man, in his desire to fly, would seek to imitate the readily observable creatures who openly display their capability.

    And capable they are! Birds are highly specialized both physiologically and instinctively to perform their marvelous feats of flight. Flying birds are uniquely configured for flight in their structure, musculature, profile, metabolism, and instinctive knowledge. Wilbur Wright accurately characterized this in his letter to Chanute when he referred to flying birds as “nature in the perfection of her machinery”—a feature which he said man could not reasonably hope to equal (Wright, 1900, Image 1). It is most interesting to study, as did the pioneers of aviation, the specific qualities of birds that make them wonderfully adept at riding the wind.

    Perhaps the most visible feature of bird flight is the motion (i.e., “flapping”) of the wings. A bird’s wings move in such a way as to produce both lift and thrust simultaneously. Man has never successfully imitated this capability, either in the manipulation of artificial wings in the manner of the Daedalus myth (though many have tried), or mechanically in the tradition of Leonardo DaVinci’s “ornithopter” concepts, prompting Anderson to state that “human-powered flight by flapping wings was always doomed to failure” (1989, p. 4). Indeed, it was the observation that birds sometimes flew without moving their wings, via gliding and soaring, that ultimately led to the success of heavier-than-air flight, through the realization that “fixed wing” flight was also a possible design solution.

    An eagle’s long, broad wings are effective for soaring. To help reduce turbulence as air passes over the end of the wing, the tips of the end feathers are tapered so that when the eagle fully extends its wings, the tips are widely separated.

    Birds do fly by flapping their wings, however, and the “secret” lies in the wing’s two-part structure. The inner part of the wing is more rounded in shape and moves very little, thus providing the majority of the lift. The outer part of the wing, on the other hand, is flatter, has a sharper edge, and executes most of the “flapping” motion, by which it produces both thrust and some lift. The outer part also serves another important purpose in flight. In his letter to Chanute, Wilbur Wright further stated:

    My observation of the flight of buzzards leads one to believe that they regain their lateral stability when partly overturned by a gust of wind, by a torsion of the tips of the wings (1900, Image 4).

    That is, birds turn the outer part of their wing to a higher angle relative to the wind to generate more lift on one side, and to a lower angle, reducing the lift, on the other side. This causes the bird to “roll,” in modern aerodynamic vernacular, in order to restore its lateral balance. Wilbur went on to explain his “wing-warping” design for accomplishing lateral stability based on this “observation of the flight of buzzards.” Modern aircraft use “ailerons,” small hinged surfaces on the back side of the wing and near the tip, to provide this lateral balancing, but the aerodynamic principle is the same. [NOTE: The next time you fly, try to sit just behind the wing and note the ailerons moving up and down frequently—keeping the aircraft balanced.] It should be no surprise that the muscles of a bird are specially configured, in size and positioning, to perform the motions of flapping and wingtip torsion. Clearly, the wing of a bird is highly specialized in both structure and musculature to provide the lift, thrust, and lateral equilibrium required for flight.

    In the early pursuit of human flight, it was a challenge to design a machine that was light enough to fly, but strong enough to survive the flight. All of the Wright brothers’ aerodynamic research to optimize lift would have meant very little had they been unable to design a structure that weighed less than the lift their wings were able to produce. The Wrights used spruce, a strong, lightweight wood, for the frame of their aircraft and covered the frame with muslin cloth. Had they used significant amounts of metal in their structural design, as in modern aircraft, they would not have succeeded. They also had to design and build their own engine since existing designs did not provide satisfactory power-to-weight ratios. Sufficiently strong, lightweight, structural materials, and an engine that maximized power for minimal weight, were critical factors in the Wright brothers’ success.

    Birds are light enough to fly due in large part to several properties of their body structure, including bones that mostly are hollow, and an impressive covering of feathers. The mostly hollow structure of bird bones provides a light, yet strong, framework for flight. Solid bones, like those possessed by other creatures and humans, would render most birds much too heavy for flight. As evolutionist and noted ornithologist Alan Feduccia stated:

    The major bones are hollow and pneumatized [filled substantially with air—JF].... [S]uch bones as the lightweight, hollow humerus are exemplary of this structural complexity (1999, p. 5).

    Bird beaks also are made of lightweight horn material instead of heavier jaw and teeth structures. Feduccia noted, “[I]t is dogma that the avian body is characterized by light weight” (p. 3), and points out that even the bird skin is “greatly reduced in weight and is paper-thin in most species of flying birds” (p. 10). By far however, the most innovative structural feature contributing to the general flightworthiness of birds is the feather.

    The phrase “light as a feather” has to be one of the oldest and most-used clichés in the English language. Yet, light as feathers are, their unique structure makes them sufficiently strong to stand against the aerodynamic forces that a bird’s wings routinely experience. The central shaft or “rachis” (Feduccia, 1999, p. 111) of a feather is an amazing structure, incredibly strong and stiff considering its negligible weight. Feather vanes are composed of fluffy strands, called barbs, that protrude from the shaft. Each barb has small hooks that attach to ridges on adjoining barbs. This characteristic allows feathers to maintain their shape to keep airflow around the bird as streamlined as possible. In fact, Feduccia observes that because of their asymmetry, “flight feathers have an airfoil cross-section” (p. 111), so they must maintain their shape to keep the bird aloft. When these hooks become detached, they have to be carefully aligned to reattach, which is accomplished in remarkable fashion by a bird’s instinctive preening (Vanhorn, 2004). Without a doubt, the feather is one of the most amazing and highly specialized structures in nature.

    Diagram of a feather
    Illustrated by Thomas A. Tarpley
    © 2004 AP

    Cross-section of two barbs showing how their barbules “hook” together.
    KEY: A. Shaft (Rachis); B. Vane; C. Barbs; D. Hooked barbules; E. Ridged barbules.

    The magnitude of the Wright brothers’ accomplishment was due to the fact that it involved powered flight of a heavier-than-air vehicle. They had to design their own engine to obtain a sufficient power-to-weight ratio. Likewise, the musculature of birds, which provides their “power” for flight, also is specially configured. First, “the major flight muscles [comprise] a disproportionate amount of the body’s weight” (Feduccia, 1999, p. 3). Feduccia also observed:

    The main muscle arising from the keel and responsible for raising the wing for the recovery stroke in modern birds is the large supracoracoideus, and it has unusual features that allow it to perform this function (p. 10).

    Feduccia further notes that the bird’s sternum is “keeled,” meaning that it has a forward protrusion to accommodate attachment of the “extensive flight musculature” (p. 10). Indeed, the bird’s muscles and its skeletal structure are uniquely built for flight.

    Birds are not only structurally specialized for flight, however. The almost constant flapping of wings requires a tremendous amount of energy. Significantly, flying birds possess a metabolic rate that is much higher than most other creatures. This allows them to consume high-energy foods and convert that food efficiently enough to supply the large quantity of energy required for flight. Feduccia comments that “birds are highly tuned metabolic machines” (1999, p. 1). High-energy fuel is not the only requirement for a high metabolism, however. Such high-rate energy conversion also requires significant amounts of oxygen. A bird’s lungs are unlike those found in any other creature. Birds do not have to breathe out, as do other vertebrates. It is not difficult to see how breathing out would be detrimental to flight; this would be much like the thrust reversal mechanisms used on modern aircraft to slow them down after landing, though on a smaller scale. Instead, the lungs of a bird are configured to allow air to flow through and out the other end, after it has acquired oxygen from the air much more efficiently than the lungs of other animals (Feduccia, p. 388). The oxygen obtained is sent to sacs throughout the bird’s body, helping to maintain balance and supply the oxygen as directly as possible to the hard-working flight muscles. The metabolic system of the bird is unique in the animal kingdom, and perfectly suited to a flying creature.

    The Wright brothers could not have known all of these facts regarding bird metabolism or the specifics of the structural specializations that make birds flightworthy. They were, however, highly impressed with the ability of birds to manipulate their physiology to control their speed and direction of flight, and to perform amazing acrobatic feats in the air. A critical piece of the Wrights’ success in developing the first practical aircraft is the “three-axis” control system that they devised. The wing-warping that controlled the “roll” orientation of their aircraft has already been discussed. The wing-warping, however, also provided steering control of the aircraft, working with the rudder (the Wrights had observed that gliding/soaring birds would generally “roll” into turns). The steering orientation of an aircraft is known as “yaw.” Finally, the elevator control surface provided regulation of the “pitch” (nose up/down) orientation of their aircraft. While it did provide full control of all three of these “axes,” the Wright design was “statically unstable,” meaning that if the pilot let go of the controls, even for a very brief period of time, the machine would crash. In contrast, most modern passenger aircraft are designed to be statically stable.

    This constant expenditure of control effort was physically exhausting; nonetheless, the Wright brothers became highly skilled pilots as a result of practicing with their machines. This pursuit to control the aerodynamics of their machine is consistent with Wilbur Wright’s stated belief that “man, by reason of his greater intellect, can more reasonably hope to equal birds in knowledge” (Wright, 1900, Image 1, emp. added). Eventually, the “fly-by-wire” concept was developed whereby computers came to perform many of the flight control functions that the Wrights had to actuate manually. Coupled with statically stable aircraft designs, fly-by-wire made flying much less strenuous for the pilot. Human beings, unlike birds, have the ability to analyze and understand concepts like aerodynamic forces and, in turn, manipulate that understanding to their own benefit.

    Though birds certainly do not come close to man in intellect, they are quite masterful in controlling their bodies and wings to achieve remarkable maneuvers in the air. Human beings in aircraft have never duplicated many of the flight maneuvers that birds perform with apparent ease. This fact is illustrated by recent, and ongoing, research studying how birds use vortices (regions of rotating air) that are created at the front (leading) edge of their wings to create lift (Videler, et al., 2004), as well as how they turn sharply at high speed (Muller and Lentink, 2004). Leading edge vortices are used in supersonic aircraft with small, delta-shaped wings to provide additional lift while landing, but Muller and Lentink suggested that the principle can be further exploited to increase significantly the maneuverability of these aircraft.

    A V-22 Osprey can rotate its engines to transition from hovering to forward flight and vice versa.

    Credit: ©Boeing 2008

    How is it, though, that birds know precisely when to flap, twist the tips of their wings, pull their head back to change their center of gravity, fan out their tail feathers, sweep their wings back to manipulate leading edge vortices, glide, soar, preen, etc.? Langley was addressing this very question when he said, “It finally occurred to me that there must be something in the condition of the air which the soaring birds instinctively understood, but which we do not” (Manly, 1915, Image 62). Birds must instinctively know how to control properly their physiology for flight, because they certainly do not have the reasoning ability of humans that would allow them to hypothesize about the nature of air movement and verify their reasoning experimentally, as did the pioneers of human aviation. Yet in spite of this reality, a bird coming to rest lightly on top of a fence post eclipses everything humans have been able to accomplish in 100+ years of concentrated flight design. Even aircraft with vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) capability like the AV-8 Harrier and the V-22 Osprey cannot pinpoint a landing that accurately. How did birds arrive at this instinctive knowledge?

    Evolutionary theories of how bird flight might have evolved fall generally into two groups. The first group involves the so-called “ground-up” theories. This is the idea that dinosaurian reptiles evolved the ability to fly, after being lucky enough to sprout rudimentary wings, presumably driven by the desire to catch flying insects for food. Feduccia himself does not subscribe to the ground-up theories, but is instead a proponent of the other group, the so-called “arboreal” theories of bird evolution. These theories suggest that tree-dwelling reptiles (dinosaur ancestors in Feduccia’s view) learned to fly after first learning to glide, most likely in order to escape predators (see Feduccia’s chapter titled “Genesis of Avian Flight,” pp. 93-111). Even the gap between gliding and flying is enormous, however. Sir George Cayley is known to have successfully flown a manned glider as early as 1853, but it would be over 50 years before the first successful powered flight at Kitty Hawk, in spite of the intense efforts of many including, most notably, Samuel Langley.

    Suppose for a moment, though, that either theory of bird flight evolution might be true. It is not difficult to imagine that vast multitudes of these creatures would have perished in the early process of learning to use their rudimentary flying equipment, just as many humans, like Otto Lilienthal, have died as mankind has slowly learned the intricacies and hazards of flight. If true that evolving birds had struggled through a similar process, then one would expect to find large numbers of “transitional” animals, possibly with developing wing structures, prototype feathers, or some other underdeveloped birdlike features in the fossil record. Feduccia admitted the lack of such fossils, and tries to excuse it stating, “Most bird bones are hollow and thin walled...and are therefore not easily preserved” (p. 1). He went on to suggest:

    One could, technically, establish a phylogeny [evolutionary ancestry—JF] of birds, or any other group, exclusively of the fossil record, and perhaps have a reasonably good idea of the major lineages using evidence from such diverse areas as anatomy and biochemical and genetic (DNA) comparisons. Yet, even then, problems are legion. Not only is there considerable argument about the methodology that should be employed, but the search for meaningful anatomical features (known as characters) that elucidate relationships is laden with problems because, beneath their feathers, birds tend to look very much alike anatomically (p. 1).

    Amazingly adept fliers, birds provide mankind with the inspiration and impetus to pursue the ability to fly.

    In other words, birds look like birds, and the fossil evidence suggests that they always have. This dilemma is particularly troubling for evolutionists when it comes to feathers, where according to Feduccia, “Feathers are unique to birds, and no known structure intermediate between scales and feathers has been identified. Nevertheless, it has generally been accepted that feathers are directly derived from reptilian scales...” (p. 113). Even the feathers of the urvogel (literally, “first bird”), known as Archaeopteryx, are said to have a pattern “essentially that of modern birds” (p. 111).

    Speaking of the urvogel, Feduccia at one point stated, “The Archaeopteryx fossil is, in fact, the most superb example of a specimen perfectly intermediate between two higher groups of living organisms” (p. 1, emp. added). Ironically, however, he later came very close to contradicting himself when he counters the “ground-up” theories of flight origin by observing that “most recent studies have shown Archaeopteryx to be much more birdlike than previously thought” (p. 103). [NOTE: For a refutation of the evolutionist’s erroneous claims regarding Archaeopteryx as a “missing link,” see Harrub and Thompson, 2001, 21[4]:25-31.] So, how does evolution explain the lack of fossil evidence for the evolution of birds? Feduccia explained, “All these known facts point to a dramatic, explosive post-Cretaceous adaptive radiation” (p. 404). In other words, it happened very fast in evolutionary terms (as little as five million years according to Feduccia)—supposedly too fast to leave behind any transitional fossils. Five million years is a very long time for the total absence of a transitional fossil record (all of human history could unfold more than 830 times in five million years). How convenient for evolutionists to assert that evolution occurred quickly during those periods that lack transitional fossils. Their theory depends on missing links—yet these links are still missing. As if explaining the evolution of bird flight was not difficult enough, though, evolutionists still need to explain the evolution of flight in insects, pterosaurs, and bats as well—also with no transitional fossil evidence.

    It is unanimously acknowledged that the Wright brothers designed and built the first practical heavier-than-air flying machine. The contributions of Cayley, Lilienthal, Langley, and others leading to that event, are also readily recognized. However, many, like Feduccia, observe birds just as these aviation pioneers once did, but see it as the end result of millions of years of accidental, unlikely random mutations refined by a process of natural selection. Considering the complexity and multiplicity of specializations required to give flying birds their ability, this viewpoint is very difficult to swallow (pardon the pun). The structure of a bird’s feather, alone, is sufficient evidence of irreducible complexity (Vanhorn, 2004), but taking all of the bird’s specializations into account, the irreducible complexity becomes absolutely overwhelming. Even if we suppose that some animal could obtain “nature in the perfection of her machinery” by accident (an accident of miraculous proportions to be sure), how would it survive long enough to learn to use that machinery? Further, assuming it was fortunate enough to develop the physical attributes of flight and managed to learn how to use them, how could it pass that knowledge to future generations of avians without intellectual understanding? It took man, with his far superior intellect, around 6,000 years to make the first halting leaps in flight, and he has not even come close to equaling, much less surpassing, a simple bird’s mastery of the skies. No, the evolutionary explanation is quite inadequate and unscientific.

    CONCLUSION

    In the Old Testament, God asked Job: “Is it by your understanding that the hawk soars, stretching his wings toward the south?” (Job 39:26). Clearly, God’s question is rhetorical and assumes that Job would have had ample opportunity to observe birds in flight and marvel at their ability. Job may never have dreamed that man would one day share the skies with birds, so he most assuredly acknowledged that the flight of the hawk was well beyond his own understanding. All of our achievements in flight, however, have only served to underscore the meaning behind God’s question to Job. In spite of all we have accomplished in flight design, we still do not fully understand how birds, insects, and bats do what they do. We do understand, however, that they did not design themselves, we certainly did not make birds capable of flight, nor did we teach them how to fly. In fact, we must humbly admit that they taught us.

    Notice that even evolutionists like Feduccia cannot avoid using words like “optimized,” “fine tuned,” “invented,” and “designed” when speaking of birds and flight. For example, Feduccia called the feather a “near perfect aerodynamic design” (p. 130, emp. added), and attributes to them an “almost magical structural complexity” (p. 132, emp. added). He further stated that “the shape and size of wings have been optimized to minimize the energy required to fly” (p. 16, emp. added), and that a bird’s metabolic system is “fine tuned” (p. 1, emp. added). And he asserted, “In order for flight to be possible, flight architecture was invented early on” (p. 1, emp. added). Feduccia also suggested:

    Flight is, in a morphological sense, the biomechanically and physiologically most restrictive vertebrate locomotor adaptation permitting little latitude for new designs.... As an analogy, an engineer can construct a terrestrial vehicle in diverse configurations, but there is really only one basic design for a fixed-wing aircraft (p. 3, emp. added).

    He meant for this suggestion to explain why there is little divergence, or differences in characteristics, among bird species. But he unwittingly made the point, instead, that this lack of divergence points most naturally to design. Since flight is such a “restrictive adaptation,” random processes, which depend by definition on probabilities, are much more likely to “select away” from the ability, regardless of the benefit it might hold for the animal. Thus, evolution is simply at a loss to explain the abundance, diversity, and very existence of the flying creatures that we observe. Furthermore, optimization, invention, design, and fine-tuning are not processes that occur naturally, randomly, or by accident. They occur only through focused application of intellectual ability.

    Likewise, the accomplishment of December 17, 1903 was no accident. The Wright brothers could not have designed their flying machine carelessly, much less randomly, and their airplane would not have flown as it did in the absence of their skillful piloting. They did not develop piloting skills naturally or by chance, either, but through arduous, disciplined experimentation and practice. Neither could the specializations and instincts that allow birds to navigate the skies have happened by accident. No, the hawk does not fly by our understanding. Instead, the hawk, sparrow, owl, thrush, swallow, etc., fly by instinct, possessing an inherent “fly by wire” control computer designed by One whose capability far exceeds that of Orville and Wilbur Wright, Samuel Langley, Otto Lilienthal, George Cayley, or any other human being. The Wright flyer required strenuous exertion by the pilot to be able to fly, but God designed His flying machines, not only to have the capability of flight, but also to know inherently how to use it to incredibly impressive effectiveness.

    It has been said, “If God had wanted man to fly, He would have given him wings.” Actually, He did. God, the Master Designer, both created the wondrous flying creatures that we observe, and gave His crowning design, man, the ability to observe, reason, and imitate. Thus, He provided both the inspiration and the means for man to achieve everything he has accomplished in his brief history of flight. So, with regard to either birds or the airplanes we see passing over our heads and homes, as Amos Ives Root observed so long ago, “the flying machine is one of God’s most gracious and precious gifts” (1905).

    REFERENCES

    Anderson, Jr., John D. (1989), Introduction to Flight (New York: McGraw-Hill), third edition.

    Feduccia, Alan (1999), The Origin and Evolution of Birds (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press), second edition.

    Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2001), “Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, and the “Dinosaurs-To-Birds” Theory—[Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 21[4]:25-31, April.

    Hedrick, Tyson L., James R. Usherwood, and Andrew A. Biewener (2004), “Wing Inertia and Whole Body Acceleration: An Analysis of Instantaneous Aero­dynamic Force Production in Cockatiels (Nymphicus hollandicus) Flying across a Range of Speeds,” The Journal of Exper­imental Biology, 207:1689-1702.

    Manly, Charles M. (1915), “Legal Cases—Wright Co. v. Curtiss Aeroplane Co.—Affidavits: Manly, Charles M.,” The Wilbur and Orville Wright Papers, January 19, Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mwright&fileName=04 /04109/mwright04109.db&recNum=61&itemLink=r?ammem/wright:@ field(DOCID+@lit(wright002721)).

    Muller, U.K., and D. Lentink (2004), “Turning on a Dime,” Science, 306:1899, December 10.

    Root, Amos Ives (1905), “First Published Account of the Wright Brothers Flight,” Gleanings in Bee Culture (Medina, OH: A.I. Root Company), [On-line], URL: http://www.rootcandles.com/about/wrightbrothers.cfm.

    Vanhorn, Matthew (2004), “Words of a Feather,” Apologetics Press, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2610.

    Videler, J. J., et al., (2004), “Leading-Edge Vortex Lifts Swifts,” Science, 306:1960-1962, December 10.

    Wright, Wilbur (1900), “Octave Chanute Papers: Special Correspondence,” The Wilbur and Orville Wright Papers, May 13, Library of Congress, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mwright&fileName=06/ 06001/mwright06001.db&recNum=0&itemLink=r?ammem/wright:@field( DOCID+@lit(wright002804)).

    Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

  • Second Look Causes Scientist to Reverse Dino-Bird Claim

    07/18/2014 9:51:42 AM PDT · 25 of 36
    kimtom to fishtank

    Evolutionary Theory Changes Its Tune...Again

    by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

    The song has been playing like a broken record for decades: “Evolution is true. Evolution is a fact. Evolution is true. Evolution is a fact....” As long as this mantra is repeated by enough intellectuals, it seems many will become and/or remain enamored with evolutionary theory—even when the underlying evidence is shown continually to be inadequate and at odds with reality. Many evolutionary-laden science textbooks declare that natural selection (e.g., English peppered moths), mutations, embryology, homology, the fossil record (e.g., the horse “family tree”), etc. all prove the General Theory of Evolution. In actuality, none of these proves what evolutionists claim. Creationists recognize the fossil record, similarities among living things, natural selection, and mutations, but we have observed nothing that proves humans descended from amphibious creatures that crawled out of the water hundreds of millions of years ago. The fact is, evolutionists’ “proofs” are simply assertions. Their theory is merely a twisted interpretation of the physical world. What’s more, their “story” changes from one year to the next—and sometimes one day to the next.

    Consider evolutionists’ assertions regarding the origin of birds. A 1989 Earth Science high school textbook declared: “The fossil record clearly shows that the immediate ancestor of this bird [Archaeopteryx—EL] was a dinosaur” (Namowitz and Spaulding, p. 565, emp. added). In 1994, Prentice Hall published a widely used middle school textbook titled Evolution: Change Over Time. Adjacent to a chart showing how long ago birds supposedly evolved from dinosaurs, the editors placed these words: “[B]iologists think that birds are actually modern-day dinosaurs. Current theory indicates that birds evolved from the most famous of the dinosaurs, Tyrannosaurus rex” (p. 67). Only last year, evolutionary scientists in China confidently affirmed that “birds evolved from dinosaurs” (“Feathered Fossils...,” 2009), and just last month we reported how evolutionary scientists writing in Nature magazine allegedly “confirmed” (yet once again) that birds evolved from dinosaurs (Butt, 2010).

    Shortly after this most recent dinosaur-to-bird article was published in Nature this past January (Zhang, et al., 2010), an article by Oregon State zoologist John Ruben appeared in the pro-evolutionary journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. What’s different about this story? For starters, Ruben acknowledged in the first line of the article that “new fossils, and reinterpretations of well-known fossils, sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up” (2010). Furthermore, he admitted to the “vagaries of the fossil record,” declaring what creationists have been affirming for years: “current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution” (2010, emp. added). “Even major aspects of paleobiology of intensely studied, recently extinct taxa (<10,000 yrs.) remain unresolved” (Ruben, emp. added).

    One “major” unresolved aspect of paleobiology that Ruben addressed was the origin of birds. Although “many scientific and lay communities,” including countless public school textbook editors, have been championing for decades that birds are “living dinosaurs,” Ruben urged readers to put the brake on this bandwagon. First of all, “very recent data suggest that many clearly cursorial theropods [ground dwelling dinosaurs—EL] previously thought to have been feathered may not have been” (Ruben; cf. Lingham-Soliar, et al., 2007, 274:1823-1829; see also Butt, 2010). What’s more, “the group that birds are assumed to have been derived from, may not even have been dinosaurs” (Ruben, emp. added)! Even though for many years, innumerable impressionable minds have been taught the “factuality” of dinosaur-to-bird evolution, evolutionary zoologist John Ruben says this was only an assumption. Scientists have never proven that dinosaurs evolved into birds. In fact, based upon recent model glide tests done by several scientists around the country (see Alexander, et al., 2010), a growing number of evolutionists appear to be “broadly at odds with one another” (Ruben).

    Evolutionary theories regarding bird-origins are contradictory, plain and simple. Some contend, “The evidence shows that birds evolved from dinosaurs,” yet others are drawing “totally different” conclusions (“Challenge to Dino-Bird...,” 2010)—based upon the same evidence. Although dinosaur-to-bird theorists have “insisted...that the debate is all over and done with,” Ruben has stated that “this issue isn’t resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors” (Viegas, 2010). Instead, Ruben believes that “the evidence is finally showing that these [raptors] which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around” (as quoted in “Challenge to Dino-Bird...,” 2010, emp. added, bracketed item in orig.).

    Ruben is correct about one thing: the often-parroted claim that dinosaurs evolved into birds is merely an assumption (and a wrong one at that!). Yet, Ruben and others are sadly mistaken that birds evolved into dinosaurs. Both of these conclusions are simply unjustified, unproven interpretations of the fossil record. The fossil record in no way proves evolution. Dinosaurs never evolved into birds and birds never evolved into dinosaurs. God created these animals on days five and six of Creation...and no fossil has ever contradicted this fact.

    REFERENCES

    Alexander, David, Enpu Gong, Larry Martin, David Burnham, and Amanda Falk (2010), “Model Tests of Gliding with Different Hindwing Configurations in the Four-Winged Dromaeosaurid Microraptor Gui,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(7):2972-2976, February 9, [On-line], URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/7/2972.abstract?ijkey=6634b3c679eee990cb37865665b5a06956ee476e&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha.

    Butt, Kyle (2010), “Were Dinosaur ‘Feathers’ Colored?” Resources, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240350.

    “Challenge to Dino-Bird Evolution Theory Not Dead Yet” (2010), [On-line], URL: http://www.world-science.net/othernews/100210_bird.htm.

    Evolution: Change Over Time (1994), (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall).

    “Feathered Fossils Prove Birds Evolved from Dinosaurs, Say Chinese Scientists” (2009), Mail Online, September 25, [On-line], URL: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1215998/Feathered-fossils-prove-birds-evolved-dinosaurs-say-Chinese-scientists.html.

    Lingham-Soliar, Theagarten., Alan Feduccia, and Xiaolin Wang (2007), “A New Chinese Specimen Indicates that ‘ProtoFeathers’ in the Early Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaur Sinosauropteryx are Degraded Collagen Fibers,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, August 7, 274:1823-1829.

    Namowitz, Samuel and Nancy Spaulding (1989), Earth Science (Lexington, MA: Heath).

    Ruben, John (2010), “Paleobiology and the Origins of Avian Flight,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(7):2733-2734, February 9, [On-line], URL: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/7/2733.extract?sid=aae35bc0-203d-4460-b1c2-cadd08fd1665.

    Viegas, Jennifer (2010), “Some ‘Dinosaurs’ Evolved from Birds?” DiscoveryNews, February 17, [On-line], URL: http://news.discovery.com/dinosaurs/some-dinosaurs-evolved-from-birds.html.

    Zhang, Fucheng, Stuart Kearns, Patrick Orr, et al. (2010), “Fossilized Melanosomes and the Color of Cretaceous Dinosaurs and Birds,” Nature, January 27, [On-line], URL: etahttp://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature08740.html.

    Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

  • Second Look Causes Scientist to Reverse Dino-Bird Claim

    07/18/2014 9:48:21 AM PDT · 22 of 36
    kimtom to fishtank

    I saw this lie proclaimed, and wondered when someone would show it false.

    Good Job!!!

  • The B-52 bomber: Long-standing symbol of US strength

    06/13/2014 9:54:53 AM PDT · 40 of 48
    kimtom to thackney

    F16 can indeed carry nukes.
    I was there when they switched from F4 to F16.
    I stood as close as anyone could get to the lovely
    thing......but I would ride one down to the target :)

    (in case your comment was not sarc)

  • Ukraine's outdated and underfunded military no match for Russia

    03/03/2014 11:20:12 AM PST · 6 of 27
    kimtom to Paine in the Neck

    There is a “modifier” Fox discounted... This is Their HOMELAND.

    Never underestimate determination, I bet they said the same thing about Israelis.......

    :)

  • Best Creation News of 2013: Astronomy

    12/18/2013 2:02:26 PM PST · 70 of 73
    kimtom to Fuzz

    some for gone nursery rhyme, “fuzzy Wuzzy was a Bear”

  • Best Creation News of 2013: Astronomy

    12/18/2013 1:59:59 PM PST · 69 of 73
    kimtom to par4

    :)

  • Best Creation News of 2013: Astronomy

    12/18/2013 1:59:13 PM PST · 68 of 73
    kimtom to freedumb2003

    eerrrrrrrt! wrong!!! again!

    (in Your assertions)

  • Best Creation News of 2013: Astronomy

    12/18/2013 1:22:23 PM PST · 62 of 73
    kimtom to BrandtMichaels

    also note Fuzz (y) had no hair , nor brains

    and “Parfore” is Slavonian for toothless, I equate with lack of brushing or hygiene.

  • Best Creation News of 2013: Astronomy

    12/18/2013 1:16:29 PM PST · 61 of 73
    kimtom to BrandtMichaels
    freedummy ‘s argument is Non sequitur.

    pointless

    good luck!

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/18/2013 12:54:50 PM PST · 103 of 103
    kimtom to Notary Sojac

    “..And certainly it is possible for a Christian to do that...”

    I disagree, in principle.
    Certainly Satan believes there is a God.
    A Christian cannot serve God and Satan.

    “.. does he endorse anything like Darwinian (”chance”) evolution...”

    He clearly states and therefore believes that God used/ uses evolution for creation.
    So he attempts to marry Evolution with Christianity.
    Because, he cannot accept that the power of God could (did) create all things in six literal days.
    The God I read about in the Bible certainly had the power and there are many reference to His power to do just that.

    (arguments about Hebrew yom and bara not withstanding)

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/18/2013 12:43:46 PM PST · 101 of 103
    kimtom to tacticalogic
    Using your logic in reverse,

    People who see dinosaurs can draw them.

    People that Seen dinosaurs can draw them.

    people draw what they see.

    you have no argument.

    any further comment is a waste of time, the last word is yours

    (yawn)

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/17/2013 8:17:06 AM PST · 98 of 103
    kimtom to Notary Sojac

    Show me a post ....”
    as with the Libs, they will not admit anything, you have to read their work, I have.

    Dr. Davidheiser sent a copy of the draft of this booklet to Dr. Hugh Ross for comments. Dr. Davidheiser said that “I think that the honorable thing to do is to send it first to Dr. Ross to ask if he finds any errors of fact on my part. I sent him a copy of the first edition and he had found no fault. He seems to think people criticize him because they do not know what a fine person he is and would not criticize him if they know him personally....”

    Christians have to be informed about the exact position which Dr. Ross takes. This is the only reason why you should read Dr. Davidheiser’s paper on “A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE MINISTRY OF DR. HUGH ROSS.”

    Theistic evolutionists accept evolution with its great lengths of time but believe it came about through acts of God instead of through natural processes.

    Progressive creationists claim to be creationists. They believe God created certain basic types of animals and plants which then varied naturally as much as possible and when they could vary no further, God created more and higher types. Two important questions are: How much can living things vary in nature and how much time is acceptable?

    Progressive creationists accept the time of the evolutionists. Belief in the extent of possible variation among plants and animals varies with progressive creationists. It seems most commonly to be accepted within the taxonomic category called the “order.” For example, a weasel and a walrus belong to the same order. A giraffe and a hippopotamus belong to the same order. This implies that a weasel and a walrus could have been produced, in time, from the same ancestry, and this would be defended as creation. Similarly for a giraffe and a hippopotamus.

    The American Scientific Affiliation was founded by a group of Christian men of science to defend the Bible against the writings of materialistic scientists, but it soon strayed. For example, a regular columnist for its journal accepted the “phylum” as the range within which natural variation can act. The phylum is the most inclusive taxonomic category under “kingdom.” The phylum Chordata includes all creatures that have bones, including man, and some that do not. According to that columnist, fish eventually could have produced men and apparently he would not have called that evolution. But, according to him, an ancestor of each of the invertebrate phyla would have been created. He said there is a problem because one would have to accept some creation! That is, one would have to accept at least as many acts of creation as there are phyla instead of accepting outright evolution!

    In a public broadcast Dr. Ross appeared with an erudite evolutionist, a physical anthropologist. The tape of this broadcast is in contrast to taped sessions with naive and enthusiastic followers. Regarding a popular definition of evolution as “descent with modification,” he said, “As long as the modification is understood in very broad terms, I’d be comfortable with that.” In other words, if “descent with modification” (evolution) is understood to be broad enough to include processes which are not strictly natural but may include acts of God (theistic evolution) it is OK.

    In this tape he says, “I would differ from, say, a theistic evolutionist [then he abruptly changes the subject and does not say how he would differ from a theistic evolutionist] and I don’t put all the miracles of God at the beginning of the Big Bang. I see what takes place following the Big Bang as natural processes [evolution], of course controlled by God [theistic evolution], since He’s responsible for the laws of physics. But that’s what science is all about, studying these processes.” In spite of his denial, this is an expression of theistic evolution.

    Here the evolutionist interjects an approving, “Right!”

    The dialogue continues.

    Dr. Ross. “Just because the ICR [Institute for Creation Research] says certain things about the Bible as literal doesn’t mean it [what the ICR says] has the approval of Hebrew scholars.”

    Evolutionist. “Exactly, and similarly, I think that the very strict young-earth creationism, which is to my mind scientifically so unreasonable, has given conservative Christians a bad name.”

    Dr. Ross. “Yes, because I would take the position that it is impossible to take the Bible literally and come to the conclusion that the days are only twenty-four hours.”

    Evolutionist. “Yes. “

    Dr. Ross. “They must be long periods of time.”

    Evolutionist. “Yes. “

    Thus Dr. Ross accommodates himself both to enthusiastic fundamentalists and to gracious evolutionists.

    more at : http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-hugh-ross.htm
    (not an unfair treatment)

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/17/2013 8:03:35 AM PST · 97 of 103
    kimtom to tacticalogic

    you obviously have not read nr researched the point.

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/17/2013 8:02:49 AM PST · 96 of 103
    kimtom to Jack of all Trades

    whatever

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 1:19:07 PM PST · 91 of 103
    kimtom to TexasGator

    now your bias is showing....

    :)

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 1:18:07 PM PST · 90 of 103
    kimtom to tacticalogic
    just challenge the assumption that they could not have drawn a picture of one unless they walked among them...”

    Okay, point taken, but we have complete skeletons, and scientist and artists (conceptualizing). today.

    These stones are said to be at least 400 years and more old!
    How could they draw these so anatomically correct hundreds of years before paleontology?

    read the articles about the illustrations, There are details they could have known only if they saw them.

    ancient stylization is understood, but these etchings are impressive.

    whether you accept them or not, they would be a serious blow to current evolutionary thought.

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 1:08:46 PM PST · 87 of 103
    kimtom to TexasGator

    No. The Dr. with the fake stones....”

    Where did you read this??? link, quote???

    the author in post 61, knew the dude.

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 1:06:08 PM PST · 86 of 103
    kimtom to TexasGator

    ONLY the fake ones have dinosaurs carved on them ,.....

    where is that pointed out?

    read post 61
    this author handled the originals and put it to scientific discourse.

    reads if you dare

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 12:50:48 PM PST · 83 of 103
    kimtom to TexasGator

    What dude??? the author of the article??? I can’t find your CLAIM

    Help me out!

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 12:47:21 PM PST · 82 of 103
    kimtom to tacticalogic
    What bias?.." That humans never saw a living dinosaur and then recorded it.

    You must believe that 65 million years separate dinosaurs and humans. Ha what a Load!!! you believe that without proof , yet when you have it in your hands and can see for yourself, you reject it.

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 12:33:53 PM PST · 79 of 103
    kimtom to tacticalogic

    drawn by people who have never seen a dinosaur....”

    careful, your bias is showing.

    You will not accept evidence or truth that falsify your belief system.

    I can help you.

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 12:21:38 PM PST · 77 of 103
    kimtom to tacticalogic

    eeeerrrrt, wrong again!!!!!

    I bet you see the Emperors clothes.....

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 12:10:13 PM PST · 74 of 103
    kimtom to tacticalogic

    So where did all the pictures of dinosaurs come from?

    read the articles

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 12:06:29 PM PST · 72 of 103
    kimtom to TexasGator

    if you want to discredit the guy....
    I am waiting.

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 12:05:20 PM PST · 71 of 103
    kimtom to tacticalogic

    errrrrrt wrong again!!

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 10:51:10 AM PST · 68 of 103
    kimtom to TexasGator

    and your proof would be....??

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 10:50:36 AM PST · 67 of 103
    kimtom to tacticalogic
    well technically, we do, since many modern animals exist in the fossil record.....

    and we draw what we see, even today

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 9:57:56 AM PST · 64 of 103
    kimtom to Jack of all Trades

    ditto see post 61

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 9:48:24 AM PST · 63 of 103
    kimtom to celmak

    see post 61

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 9:46:29 AM PST · 62 of 103
    kimtom to Jack of all Trades

    If you don’t want to be quoted......shut up!

    simple

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 9:45:02 AM PST · 61 of 103
    kimtom to TexasGator; MrB; All

    The Rocks Begin To Speak

    The stones give mute testimony to the fact that man walked with dinosaurs. I was certain that in the laboratory, the rocks would break that silence and communicate in the language of scientific assertion, that they are ancient carved canvasses.

    I brought three stones to Mason Optical, Inc. for analysis. Mason Optical invented a revolutionary stereoscopic microscope that costs between eighty to one hundred thousand dollars. The three stones included in the study:

    A) The fake stone carved by Basilio
    B) An Ica stone from Cabrera’s Collection
    C) The stone from the tomb in Rio Grande, Nazca
    The laboratory results revealed several defining characteristics of the stones:

    A) The first stone, under microscopic investigation, showed very shallow incisions with small scratches and chips from the stone. Minute specks of blue metal (steel) were found on the stone. The incisions were clean and angled. There was no patina or film of oxidation on the stone; no microorganisms or salt peter were found on the stone. The laboratory conclusion was that the stone was of recent manufacture. Someone had used a metal blade or tool with short strokes to carve the grooves in the stone. The tool left behind the minute specks of metal that could be seen under the optical microscope. The laboratory’s discovery was consistent with the truth. I had watched Basilio with a four-inch piece of blue steel hacksaw blade making short, hard strokes on the stone.
    ....
    B) The microscopic analysis of the Cabrera rock or Ica Stone revealed that it had a fine patina covering the grooves and incisions of the stone. There was dirt and sand embedded in the crevices of the stone including some of the incisions. The natural oxidation had slightly colored the incisions so that they did not have a bright-white look. No evidence of modern tool usage or minute metal particles were found. The laboratory conclusion was that the engravings on the stone were not recent but of some age. That age could not be determined because patina and natural oxidation cannot be accurately measured. The patina is not an absolute proof of age, but it would be impossible to find patina on a recently engraved stone.

    The stone has an outside layer of coloration and weathering. When an incision (cut) is made, it breaks that layer. If the weathering has been scraped away and the stone’s natural color shows at the base of the incision, the cut is probably new. If the incisions have become weathered and the stone’s coloration extends down into the incisions, then the stone’s incisions are at least “old” to some degree.

    Any attempt to date the stones is a doomed exercise. The stones themselves are eons old. We can’t date the stones, and we don’t even want to try. We want to date the lines or incisions on the stones. The line we scratch on it today is only as old as—well, today. So the only way to date the scratch is to look for patina, weathering oxidation, microorganisms, lichens or other features indicative of age.
    .......
    In the American Southwest, archaeologists regularly dig up pottery or other artifacts that show no patina or very little patina. F.G. Hawley, a chemist with years of experience in archaeology wrote, “Many (artifacts) in dry western country show little or no patina after seven or eight hundred years.”

    Anyone who has studied Andean archaeology and been involved in excavations in the southern desert of Peru knows that the textiles, pottery, and other artifacts from the tombs are in an astonishing state of preservation. The fact that the Cabrera rock had any patina on it may mean that it is much older than seven or eight hundred years.

    C) The third stone from the tomb at Rio Grande, Nazca, was examined under the stereo zoom microscope. This stone had a heavy coat of patination and oxidation. Microorganisms could be seen in the grooves and the incisions. There is a uniformity of coloration and weathering. The incisions and cuts are as dark and weathered as the rest of the stone. There are several thick concentrations of salt peter that are so full of salt buildup that it covers parts of the carving with a white layer obscuring the image below. There are seriations and slight fizzures in the grooves. This could only happen over a considerable period of time with the change of heat and cold through the seasons in the desert. There is a notable irregular wear on the edges of the incisions that leads one to the inescapable conclusion that this stone had undergone considerable wear. Lichen growth was also found on one section of the stone. Dirt and sand were embedded in the grooves, cracks, crevices, and orifices of the stone. There is a dark blackish stain covering the body of one of the dinosaur zoomorph images. The salient conclusion of the laboratory is that the stone is of some age, in fact, of antiquity of hundreds or thousands of years old.
    ......
    The three stones were subjected to a blind test by Richard Sutcliffe who trains others in the use of the ROI video probe. The results were both revealing and conclusive. The fake stone carved by Basilio had grooves that showed up as white under the magnification and lights of the ROI. The surrounding area of the stone was covered with patina. The ROI also picked up the smallest of particles of quartz and pyrite that sparkled when the zoom microscope was at high magnification. The grooves had to be recently cut to break the layer over the quartz and pyrite causing them to shine. The microscope at 25x to 75x caught the telltale signs of cuts made at right angles and minuscule blue metal flakes. There was no evidence of rotary powered tool use.

    The second stone from the Cabrera Museum was thoroughly examined. The groove did not appear bright or fresh but dull and slightly gray. This was verification that they were not of recent manufacture. The stone had no pitting or pock marks in the grooves which are the result of saws or rotary powered tools. The stone had an even wear to the grooves except in one area where there was considerable wear. The worn area may have been caused by constant handling before it was buried.

    The third stone from the tomb in the Nazca desert had grooves that were dark gray, weathered, cracked, and embedded with salt peter. The salt peter under 75x magnification looked like a growth of algae all over a section of the stone. No doubt this stone had been buried for centuries. There were five patches of lichens growing on the stone. The image of two dinosaurs, a sea creature, and some unknown animal were calculated to be 1/16th of an inch on average above the stone. The figures were done in bas relief. How the stone was carved away to make the figures higher than the stone is a mystery. Richard Sutcliffe, who performed the microscopic probe, is an expert in machine made tools. Richard theorized that the ancient people might have used a tool with a diamond-type bit.
    ......
    By Dr. Dennis Swift – Courtesy of The Dinosaur Institute

    http://livingdinos.com/2011/07/are-the-ica-stones-fake-skeptics-under-fire/

    full article

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 9:26:26 AM PST · 59 of 103
    kimtom to TexasGator

    did he?

    when?

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 9:25:14 AM PST · 58 of 103
    kimtom to Jack of all Trades

    I read the article. The “evidence is thin, incomplete or hearsay....”

    he referenced his quotes well. so I reject this statement.

    “So here’s a thought experiment for you - if the stones are real....”

    now that is an good question. (the point of the exercise)

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 7:48:16 AM PST · 52 of 103
    kimtom to Jack of all Trades

    You say this after fully reading the article I supplied???

    You didn’t read it??

    I leave it to others to judge betwixt us.

    (I would have read the article before replying)

    You brought a smile to my face!!!
    I will just leave you with that! :)

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 6:58:43 AM PST · 50 of 103
    kimtom to Jack of all Trades

    There is no argument from this author that there are some fake Ica Stones out there, but on the other hand, just because some fakes and frauds have been made, doesn’t mean the real ones are discredited. However, most evolutionists take the position that the stones are all fakes because they are afraid. If just one of these stones is real, it would collapse the very foundations of their religious teachings.

    I have traveled to Pensacola, FL to see the largest collection of these stones in the US. Most evolutionists, that believe the stones to be fake, have never even seen them in person. They are incredibly dense and heavy, and when you see them yourself, you will notice the care that must have been taken to carve these stones, and question the processes that were used to accomplish it.

    There are many articles and documentaries made that have, in their own words, “proven” these Ica Stones to be fakes, but the whole truth is not told. Most of these shows and documents are simply not well-researched because there is a presuppositional bias that needs the stones to be non-existent. For example, a man by the name of Philip Coppens wrote an article on his website that attempts to squelch any credibility to the Ica Stones, but the extent of his research is seen in his labeling of Dr. Cabrera’s father:
    “Cabrera’s private museum includes a collection of stones belonging to his father — Bolivia Cabrera...”
    Those that say all the Ica Stones are fake have to find a ways around the scientific and archeological evidence, and often, it is ignored. For example, these stones were first discovered and reported by the Spanish in 1535.
    “Father Simon, a Jesuit missionary, accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast and recorded his amazement upon viewing the stones. In 1562, Spanish explorers sent some of the stones back to Spain.”
    Erich von Daniken analyzed these stones on a microscopic level, and found the following:
    “Right angled clean scratches showed on the new stone under the microscope, whereas microorganisims could be seen in the grooves of Cabrera’s stones under a fine glaze... that was the tiny major difference between genuine and false stones.”
    -Erich von Daniken, According to the Evidence: My Proof of Man’s Extraterrestrial Origins, Souvenir Press, 1977, p. 327, ISBN: 9780285623019

    http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/icastones.php

    entire article

    If the skeptics would do a little research, they wouldn’t have to be so skeptical.
    -Christopher J. E. Johnson

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 6:50:25 AM PST · 49 of 103
    kimtom to Jack of all Trades

    send me a link.

    is this the same guy that sold a pig’s tooth as human?

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 6:44:23 AM PST · 47 of 103
    kimtom to MrB

    I guess they need to read II Peter 3:17........

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 6:40:58 AM PST · 45 of 103
    kimtom to MrB
    EXPECTED that a false religion would become “common knowledge” amongst those “of” this world..."

    by this you mean evolution?

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 6:30:25 AM PST · 43 of 103
    kimtom to tacticalogic

    your argument for protein fragments

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 6:28:03 AM PST · 42 of 103
    kimtom to Just mythoughts
    IIPeter 3 describes three different heaven/earth worlds, and that word world means age(s). That heaven/earth age that WAS .."

    -what translation are you reading from?

    "There is NO way if young earth creationists were correct in claims of a young earth would the Creator have allowed the religion of evolution to become the law of this land...."

    FALSE conclusion/argument

  • Dinosaur Soft Tissue Preserved by Blood?

    12/16/2013 6:23:42 AM PST · 40 of 103
    kimtom to Notary Sojac

    Hugh Ross’ excellent “Reasons to Believe” website...”

    Ross is a evolutionist (with a theistic twist)