In A Remote Area: Soft Tissue Discovered

One of the greatest scientists to have ever lived was Issac Newton! He believed that by performing the scientific method, one would come to a conclusion through observations of nature, that God was the designer. He writes…

“And there is no other way of doing any thing with certainty then by drawing conclusions from experiments & phaenomena untill you come at general Principles & then from those Principles giving an account of Nature…One principle in Philosophy is the being of a God or spirit infinite eternal omniscient, omnipotent, & the best argument for such a being is the frame of nature & chiefly the contrivance of the bodies of living creatures.

All the great land animals have two eyes, in the forehead a nose between them a mouth under the nose, two ears on the sides of the head, two arms or two fore leggs or two wings on the sholders & two leggs behind & this symmetry in the several species could not proceed from chance, there being an equal chance for one eye or for three or four eyes as for two, & so of the other members”.

“Nothing is more curious & difficult then the frame of the eyes for seeing & of the ears for hearing & yet no sort of creatures has these members to no purpose. What more difficult then to fly? & yet was it by chance that all creatures can fly which have wings? Certainly he that framed the eyes of all creatures understood the nature of light & vision, he that framed their ears understood the nature of sounds & hearing, he that framed their noses understood the nature of odours & smelling, he that framed the wings of flying creatures & the fins of fishes understood the force of air & water & what members were requisite to enable creatures to fly & swim: & therefore the first formation of every species of creatures must be ascribed to an intelligent being.

So through observation of the data, one would come up with an inference that God was the creator, who thought out all these processes and made them work! Science does in fact confirm creationism, which leads us to our next story, soft tissue which had been highly disputed by secular scientists in 2005, with the T-Rex fossil. This latest discovery like the previous ones, adds more complexity rather than clarity when it comes to explaining evolution.

In a vast cold area of the north, known as arctic in Canada, scientists discovered soft tissue of seal fossils? No! Scientists discovered soft tissues of ancient polar bears? No! What about fish? No! You would never guess what they discovered in Canada’s arctic known as Ellesmere Island! What they actually discovered was soft tissue which came from…a  camel! Yep, a camel, found in a place where the weather produces massive snowstorms along with months of perpetual darkness. Dated in the evolution’s ever expanding inaccurate framework to be 3.5 million years old.

Scientists like everyone else were surprised of the discovery because of the cold and harsh climate. Not only that, but these ancient camels were better adaptive to more environments and 30 percent bigger than modern camels today! Wouldn’t that be considered evolution going backwards? In creationism, nature and the universe is in a downward trend and this discovery confirms it rather than complicates it.

How did these camels get there? Where are the transitions that lead to these camels who lived in Canada’s arctic? This is another case of a fully formed animal all of a sudden popping up in the fossil record without transitional forms. If evolution was true, there should be more transitional forms than the animals themselves! Here is another case of a great discovery found in a remote location that confirms the biblical account of creationism!

Advertisements

25 thoughts on “In A Remote Area: Soft Tissue Discovered

  1. Sorry. How did I manage to misspell my own name? It’s been my nom de clavier on the internet since 1982.

  2. “Science does in fact confirm creationism, …”

    That’s not even possible, as creationism is a belief, not science.

  3. In a vast cold area of the north, known as arctic in Canada,

    Yes, Michael. everyione oin the world already knows that. Actually, they call it “the Arctic’ all over the world, not only in Canada.

    What they actually discovered was soft tissue which came from…a camel! Yep, a camel, found in a place where the weather produces massive snowstorms along with months of perpetual darkness. Dated in the evolution’s ever expanding inaccurate framework to be 3.5 million years old.

    Michael fails basic reading comprehension yet again. He tries to hide his source from his rreaders, but it is his usual sceintific sinkhiole, Creation Evolution News, rtun by David Coppedge, a fired NASA computer programmer, ehose knowledge of things biological exceeds Michael’s by the slimmest of margins.[1]

    So, according to Michael, this proto-camel had to endure year-round blinding snowstorms. The only problem is that, 3.5Mya, when Dromedary Dan lived there, Ellesmere Island was 36 degrees warmer than it is tioday—a chilly, but not inhospitable land of coniferous forests and deciduous trees. And, since Michael has never been to a real actual desert,[2] he is oblivious to the fact that the temperature can fall to 40F at night, even in the Sahara.[3]

    Michael is also oblivious to the fact that larger body sizes conserve heat in cold climates better than small, thin animals, allowing better body-temperature regulation in the winter.[4] Desert camels don’t need this capability nearly as much—cold temps last only a few hours at a time, then go back to blazing hot, where smaller, thinner bodies dissipate heat better. The fat storage[5] in a camel’s hump would have served it in the far north just as well as in the desert.
    A camel’s artiodactylate toes are beneficial not only in the loose sand of the desert, but in the loose snow of a cold climate. Think of a snowshoe—a broad flat surface distributes weight over a wider area, preventing sinking through the surface. Look at a moose’s hooves, for example.

    As to “months of darkness,” biologists had wondered why camel’s eye’s are larger and keener than most other desrt animals. This could be a reason, mais non?

    Michael, this ignorant gambit falls flat on its nose. Maybe a few of the illiterate faithful will nod their heads and drool on the rug in moronic assent. But the response from anyone with any knowledge—OR from anyone who read and understood the news reports on this story—can only be MWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

    =======================

    [1] Coppedge probably picked it up from “Ancestor of the camel was an Arctic giant,” NBC Science News (undated)

    [2] Nor ridden a camel. Not much like riding a horse; every direction you look is down—quite a ways down. Somewhat intimidating. I bet Michael did not know that canels are very graceful animals, also.

    [3] Geography seems to be another weak point of Michael’s home schooling.

    [4] Michael has this unshakable misconception that larger animals evolving into smaller animals disproves evolution. We give him books and we give him books, but he just eats the covers.

    [5] No, Michael. Camel humps do NOT store water.

  4. Maybe a few of the illiterate faithful will nod their heads and drool on the rug in moronic assent.

    Paging Dr. Eelco to scold Olorin for attacking language.

  5. Michael quotes Newton—


    “All the great land animals have two eyes, in the forehead a nose between them a mouth under the nose, two ears on the sides of the head, two arms or two fore leggs or two wings on the sholders & two leggs behind & this symmetry in the several species could not proceed from chance, there being an equal chance for one eye or for three or four eyes as for two, & so of the other members”.

    Let’s see. Newton died 226 years before Watson & Crick’s discovery of DNA. A lot happened in the meantime.We learned thet bilateral symmetry is genetically determinbed, and inherited. Since then we have learned how hox genes produce chemical gradients that produce this symmetry. So, Michael, quoting Newton on why (some—not all) animals have bilteral symmetry, and why (some—not all) animals have two eyes, is an act of pure desperation. Your invocation of a two-century-old god-of-the-gaps pronouncement by a world-famous physicist rates a big BWAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!

    Don’t forget that Newton also thought that his gravitational theory was insufficient to keep the planets from planets in their orbits, and that periodic nudges from God were necessary. Until (a) Laplace proved him wrong 50 years later, andf (b) astronomers have found that planets CAN occasionally change their orbits. Remember also that Lord Kelvin pronounced authoritativeley that the earth could not be older than about 30M years—because that’s how long the sun could burn, even if it were made of pure coal. It was only a few decades later that nuclear fusion was detected in the sun.

    This argument from ancient authority is desperate and stupid. Laughably so. If that’s the best you can do, you need to take a Remedial Creation course. Quickly.

  6. How did these camels get there? Where are the transitions that lead to these camels who lived in Canada’s arctic? This is another case of a fully formed animal all of a sudden popping up in the fossil record without transitional forms.

    One more reason Michael does not qualify for science is that he has no conception of research. A quick Google seach on “camel evolution” produiced the following from Camelids in Wikipedia—

    Camelids first appeared very early in the evolution of the even-toed ungulates, around 45 million years ago during the middle Eocene, in present-day North America. Among the earliest camelids was the rabbit-sized Protylopus, which still had four toes on each foot. By the late Eocene, around 35 million years ago, camelids such as Poebrotherium had lost the two lateral toes, and were about the size of a modern goat.

    The family diversified and prospered but remained confined to the North American continent until only about 2 or 3 million years ago, when representatives arrived in Asia, and (as part of the Great American Interchange that followed the formation of the Isthmus of Panama) South America. A High Arctic Camel from this time period has been documented in the far northern reaches of Canada.
    ………
    Other extinct camelids included small, gazelle-like animals, such as Stenomylus. Finally, there were a number of very tall, giraffe-like camelids, adapted to feeding on leaves from high trees, including such genera as Aepycamelus, and Oxydactylus.

    This article contains a map of camelid migration during their evolution, for the lexically challenged. The Arctic camel was actually one of the earlier ones. A transitional species.

    Also, not to forget that Ellesmere Island was where Tiktaalik, the transitional amphibian, was found. Tiktaalik was not a cold-weather species either; it lived in a warm, brackish river estuary. Long-range continental drift is another one of the ideas thta will most likely require high explosives to penetrate Michael’s brain.

    .

    If evolution was [sic] true, there should be more transitional forms than the animals themselves!

    A nice logical conundrum: Transitional forms are themselves animals. Thus, Michael claims that there should be more animals than there are animals.

    Remember the old saying: “If you’re not transitional, then you’re going extinct.” Creationists should take that one to heart.

  7. Just a quick note for “Olorinly”, I’m only going to allow one screen name, it’s not cool to post in different screen names…

  8. Ah, good ! I’m receiving meaningful information again, from Olorin and Michael.

  9. Thanks Michael – your rule on allowing just one screen name was indeed a very meaningful piece of information. Short, but that’s OK.

  10. Just a quick note for “Olorinly”, I’m only going to allow one screen name, it’s not cool to post in different screen names…

    Sorry, Michael. “Olorinly” is “Olorin,” after a jumpy cursor landed by mistake on the name field instead of the comment area, and went undetected for a while.

  11. Continuing Michael’s quote from Newton—

    “Nothing is more curious & difficult then the frame of the eyes for seeing & of the ears for hearing & yet no sort of creatures has these members to no purpose. What more difficult then to fly? & yet was it by chance that all creatures can fly which have wings?

    > What does Michael opine that Newton would have thought about blind cave fish? That have eyes, but cannot see?
    > What would Newton have thought of birds, such as penguins, ostrichs, emus, cassowaries, rheas, and kiwis? That have wings yet cannot fly?

    So through observation of the data, one would come up with an inference that God was the creator,

    But, if the data are incorrect, as Newton’s was in this case, does that lead to the opposite inference? That God was not the creator?.

  12. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..Camels to the right of them,,
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Camels to the left of them,
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Camels in front of them,
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Into the jaws of boredom
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rode the six hundred.

    Have we just about run through this one? There are other subjects waiting in the wings for Michael’s ignorance to prey upon.

    Evolution News and Views (which has as much to do with evolutuion as horse chestnuts have to do with the horse racing) features an article on Thomas Nagel’s new book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. (Mar 20) The ENV article referenceces an essay by Andy Ferguson in The Weekly Standard. As lagniappe, Ferguson’s essay is available on-line. A critical review in Science is the subject of anoter ENV article (Mar 18).

    Meanwhile, AiG’s News to Note, Mar. 16 offers up a critique of claim in the Atlantic that many Christian home-schoolers are clamoring for textbooks on evolution, so their kids won’t end up scientific ignoramuses.

    NtoN 3/16 also notes research on the possible evolution of human speech from birdsong. (The title is wrong, but what can you expect from Ken Ham.) This article then vochsafes to us the true origin of human speech—telephone messages from God, of course.
    Michael is also free to nick papers from real journals, such as Nature and science, if he casn hold them right side up.

  13. Speaking of which — papers in Nature, that is — the March 21 issue reports an analysis of 15 months of data from the Planck telescope[1] on the distribution of the cosmic background radiation.

    These new data strongly support a cosmic inflation 10^-32 seconds after the Big bang. Planck is much more sensitive than its predecessors, WMAP and COBE. Some of the numbers have been revised, altho they remain within the error bars of previous data. The universe is about 80M years older than thought, and dark matter rises from 22.7% to 26.8%, Michael will be glad to hear.

    Creatonists explain the cosmic background radiation, and the patterns of variation therein, as random scraps left over from the creation — sawdust from God’s workshop.

    ======================

    [1] Which represents e €600 million of someone’s hard-earned tax euros — not Michael’s, however. Michael’s hard-earned tax dollars go toward financing creation theme parks.which are the primary instruments of creation research. See
    Ark Encounter, Kentucky Creationist Theme Park, Gets Generous Tax Breaks In Budget Proposal, Jan. 21, 2012. Part of the money for the theme park came from cuting higher education. Michael considers this a good trade-off; higher education produces more atheists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s