Archive for the ‘Science’ Category

One of the challenges often posed to the Biblical account of Noah’s Ark is that carnivorous animals could not survive without eating meat, and presumably the other animals on the Ark were off limits least an entire species (or “kind”) of animal get wiped out.

However, there is evidence for some carnivorous animals that we know of today that under certain circumstances, a vegetarian diet will suffice.

An example I just found is the spider, as written in this recent article from a non-Creationist science website, Sparkonit:

“​Spiders occasionally prey on small vertebrates such frogs, lizards, snakes, fish, birds, and bats and sometimes even feed on plants.” 
That is all.

Many sacred objects in Jewish tradition are described by Scripture or in Oral Tradition as being composed of sapphire stone. Some examples: the Throne of Glory (God’s “throne”), the Two Tablets of the Covenant, Moses’ staff.

For things such as the Throne of Glory, we can be certain the description of sapphire stone is meant figuratively, or merely in a comparative fashion, but as for the other items, whether this is meant literally or figuratively is a question for a separate discussion.

That notwithstanding, what makes the sapphire stone so special that it is the substance of choice for these sacred objects?

I had always surmised it is because of the stone’s color — it is blue, like the sky, which reminds us of the heavens generally, so its color is related to things of holiness.

However, I have discovered a new quality of sapphire which may also relate to its selection as the substance of choice for objects of supernatural origin. Here is an excerpt from Introduction to Geology by Robert Bakewell (p. 35):

Though alumine or pure clay communicates a soft quality to most stones of which it forms a principal constituent part, a very remarkable exception to this is offered in adamantine spar and the sapphire, which nearly equal the diamond in hardness. Klaproth, one of the most laborious and eminent chemists of the present age, has analysed these stones : the former contains 90 parts in the 100 of pure clay ; the latter 95 parts in the same quantity. ‘What a high degree of cohesive power (he observes) must nature command, to be able to transform such a common substance as clay (aluminous earth) into a body so eminently distinguished and ennobled as the sapphire by its hardness, brilliancy, and its resistance to the action of fire, of acids, or the effects of all-destroying time!’

So aside from its “heavenly” color, the sapphire is distinguished in that it is composed 95% of clay, a soft substance, yet despite this, is among the hardest, most durable substances on earth, rivaling the diamond! This while clay usually makes a substance softer! So sapphire, then, is a substance that in a way appears to defy the normal laws of nature. In this way, sapphire is an almost “supernatural” substance. (While I’m sure there is a naturalistic chemical explanation for this phenomenon, I merely mean to remark on the surprising quality of sapphire in this regard, giving the initial impression of an inexplicable, transcendental quality.) It makes sense then, that this substance is an appropriate choice for supernatural objects.

It also carries a profound lesson that even the most mundane and profane substances (clay) can be transformed into something extremely lofty and pristine. It is even more significant that man himself is described in Scripture as having been formed from the clay of the earth, and fashioned into a spiritual being with the introduction of a divine soul. This is very much analogous to the sapphire. I believe we have discovered something very deep and profound here.

May we merit to refine ourselves such that we, like the sapphire, transform our mundane bodies into pristine spiritual vehicles!

Marine shells lie far distant from the deep, and the anchor has been found on the summit of hills.

          -Sir Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology

“​[There is a] tradition of a deluge among the Araucanian Indians… [There is a] legend also of the ancient Peruvians of an inundation many years before the reign of the Incas, in which only six persons were saved on a float…”

          -Sir Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology

This new science news piece has been making the rounds:

“Ancient ‘Deep Skull’ from Borneo full of surprises” —

What follows is most of the article, truncated a bit by me. The point I make here is only to highlight another example about how “conclusions” of “scientist” regarding the interpretations of ancient findings have once again been demonstrated to be false or at least highly questionable. As it should be. Science should always be an endeavor of continual learning, and therefore, as we learn more, older ideas will be overturned now and again. However, in that context, I wish to level criticism at those who constantly push contemporary scientific “belief” as “proof” against the Bible. As evidenced in this article, what scientists THINK the fossils are telling us is ALWAYS tentative, until new information becomes available to modify what we thought we knew. But when these two systems of knowledge conflict with one another, science does not checkmate the Bible. It’s just saying, “Maybe.” A person who wishes to hold on to their faith that the Bible remains true despite what appears to be evidence to the contrary is well within the bounds of reason in doing so.

“A new study of the 37,000-year old remains of the ‘Deep Skull’ – the oldest modern human discovered in island South-East Asia – has revealed this ancient person was not related to Indigenous Australians, as had been originally thought.

“The Deep Skull was also likely to have been an older woman, rather than a teenage boy.

“Our analysis overturns long-held views about the early history of this region,” says Associate Professor Curnoe, Director of the UNSW Palaeontology, Geobiology and Earth Archives Research Centre (PANGEA).

 “‘We’ve found that these very ancient remains most closely resemble some of the Indigenous people of Borneo today, with their delicately built features and small body size, rather than Indigenous people from Australia.’

“In 1960, Brothwell concluded the Deep Skull belonged to an adolescent male and represented a population of early modern humans closely related, or even ancestral, to Indigenous Australians, particularly Tasmanians.
“‘Brothwell’s ideas have been highly influential and stood largely untested, so we wanted to see whether they might be correct after almost six decades,’ says Curnoe.

“‘Our study challenges many of these old ideas. It shows the Deep Skull is from a middle-aged female rather than a teenage boy, and has few similarities to Indigenous Australians. Instead, it more closely resembles people today from more northerly parts of South-East Asia.'”

“The Deep Skull has also been a key fossil in the development of the so-called ‘two-layer’ hypothesis in which South-East Asia is thought to have been initially settled by people related to Indigenous Australians and New Guineans, who were then replaced by farmers from southern China a few thousand years ago.

“The new study challenges this view by showing that – in Borneo at least – the earliest people to inhabit the island were much more like Indigenous people living there today rather than Indigenous Australians, and suggests long continuity through time.

“It also suggests that at least some of the Indigenous people of Borneo were not replaced by migrating farmers, but instead adopted the new farming culture when it arrived around 3,000 years ago.

“‘Our work, coupled with recent genetic studies of people across South-East Asia, presents a serious challenge to the two-layer scenario for Borneo and islands further to the north,’ says Curnoe.

“‘We need to rethink our ideas about the region’s prehistory, which was far more complicated than we’ve appreciated until now.'”

“That science, which, despairing of itself and aware of its own weak mind, denies the existence of a spirit, shows up with triumphant mien the apparatus of a system of bones, and thereby believes to have given an explanation of man, will with shame retire: it will yield to the healthful science which respects the spirit, and has a presentiment of the Spirit of all spirits. This science will anew enliven the world, and go hand-in-hand with Judaism, which has ever been permeated and quickened by such ideas.”
           -Abraham Geiger, Judaism and its History, p. 295

NOT a Creationist point of view. So-called “real science” has known for decades or longer the “facts” about falsehoods we were indoctrinated with as children. The title of this video is quite accurate — the brontosaurus and triceratops were indeed my favorite childhood dinosaurs, but in fact it has been known since before I was born that THEY NEVER EXISTED! And this is only the tip of the iceberg. I could go on but those of you who are interested will do your own research. Just think twice before swallowing every pill “science” peddles as reality.