Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
An out-of-this-world theory on how nothing turned into something, a giant
fossil human footprint, and we dive into the mailbox - this is Genesis week.
[music]
And a welcome to this episode of Genesis Week, the weekly program of creationary
commentary on news, views and events pertaining to the origins controversy,
exclusive right here on youtube. Still one of the most discussed videos on youtube
in science & technology, we bring you the information the anti-creationists don't
want you to see or hear, and we show the glory of God in the Creation.
Remember if you get lost in cyberspace, just punch in wazooloo.com or
genesisweek.com, and you will find us, or click the ever-so-convenient subscribe
link up top. I'm your host, Ian Juby.
Alan Boyle, of Cosmic log on MSNBC had an interview with theoretical physicist
Lawrence Krauss. Krauss, head of the Origins Project at Arizona State
University, tackled the question of "How did everything come from nothing?" in his
latest book entitled "A Universe from Nothing."
So how exactly do you get a universe from nothing? As Boyle explained it, by
calling upon energy to be converted into matter - following the suit of Einstein's
relativitistic theory, combined with
That's right, it can work.....if we violate the laws of physics. translation: it would
be a miracle.
I admire Krauss's brutal honesty - we creationists have been pointing out for
decades that the origin of the universe and life requires a miracle - a defiance of
the laws and nature and physics. But notice that while they are willing to
accept a miracle, they will not accept the possibility of a miracle worker - Our
Creator, Jesus Christ?
Krause said:
Wow. One comment on the blog, left by UnitedStates1776, summed up this utter
nonsense nicely: "I am possible, therefore I will be." Krauss has envisioned a very
introspective universe that needs to plan ahead in order to even be. Forget about "I
think, therefore I am" - this is "I will be, therefore I must think of how I can be, so I
can think."
Krauss defended his position by saying:
Wait a minute! You were talking about a magical, mystical fantasy land where the
laws of physics are different or perhaps don't even exist, and now somehow you
think this helps people learn about reality?
Read the blog post yourself, then tell me what you think in the comments down
below: Do you think Krauss is on to something? Or is he perhaps on
something? Or do you think Krauss should be on something?
In Jesus' Name Productions is working on a movie that re-enacts Noah's flood.
Producer Joe Bardwell invited both Christian old-earth advocates and Young
Earth Christians to present their models of how Noah's flood happened, or didn't
happen, in a peer-reviewed panel format. Joe then held a competition for ten people
in a technical review panel, of which I earned a spot. Our job as the technical
review panel was to rip all of these models apart, scientifically, if we could.
Several old-earth advocates declined to participate, but their models and
arguments were scrutinized as non-responding authors. Six Young Earth
Creation models; both flood and pre-flood world models, were defended by their
authors in the technical review. The competition and technical review itself
went on for some two years, and the findings of the review were published in a
massive e-book. This is a must-read for anyone interested in geology, flood
geology, Biblical catastrophism, uniformitarianism, actualism, etc... The
book is available for instant download for a donation of your choosing. If you could
though, please make it a generous donation, as Joe put tens of thousands of
dollars into this important project. This book, in my opinion, is going to
impact both the creation and evolution community as much as the landmark book
"The Genesis Flood." You can get your copy here at In Jesus Name Productions.
This past week, Teno Groppi handed me a video of an alleged fossil human footprint
found in South Africa. I shortly thereafter got bombarded with questions from
viewers, asking my opinion on this track. I was actually very grateful to see the
video, as Teno and I both belong to a discussion group about fossil footprints,
and someone had posted some rather poor photos of this alleged track.
Michael Tellinger posted a video report of this odd feature in the rock, and they did
a splendid job of showing the anomaly. I'm afraid to report however, for multiple
reasons, I do not believe this is a fossil human footprint.
The "footprint" is in granite. Now the conventional belief is that granite forms
from a melt. If that is the case, then you have humans walking around, leaving
footprints in molten rock. Obviously, this is impossible. But even if the granite
formed in a cold process, I still do not think it's a human footprint. For example,
do watch the video yourself - here's the link right here, where is the mud that was
displaced by the foot making the footprint? There isn't any. On a track that
deep, there should be some - in fact, quite a bit. Secondly, I have personally
investigated erosional features such as those that make up the toes in this
"track," in multiple locations. It is caused by fracture and erosion, and in fact
several geologist friends and I were discussing how this could happen. In fact,
in the video you can see some other overhangs off to the left of the track, in
the rock face. They just do not bear any resemblance to toes or anything, but they
are fracture and erosional features just like you see in the footprint.
A Professor Pieter Wagener is quoted regarding the allegation of erosional
features, saying
With respect Professor Wagener, as one of the leading fossil human footprint
experts within the Creation community, I get typically 1 to 3 requests per year to
come investigate alleged fossil human footprints. Of all the investigations I have
carried out, only one of them appeared to be genuine. All the others turned out to
be foot print-shaped depressions, wave ripples, fractures or erosion in rock -
including granite and gneiss. Some of them, were in fact, even more convincing
that the South African feature. And you know what I have learned over the years?
People get really really angry when you tell them their fossil human footprint isn't
a fossil human footprint. The fact is that you can so can get so
many shapes and depressions in rocks, that you will get footprint impressions -
human or otherwise. These are pseudo fossils. It is just for this reason that
typically a dinosaur track is not considered genuine unless you have
three tracks in a row, or other tracks in that immediate locality. The absense of a
trail of human footprints at the South Africa site is also a major blow to the
authenticity of this feature being a human footprint.
So while I must regretably say that "No, it is not a fossil human footprint," I must
say well done to MIchael Tellinger on his report. Thank you - you did an excellent
job of reporting this feature, showing video from a far off, as well as close-in
detail. This was much better documentation then I'd seen thus far, so I
am grateful, thanks for your hard work.
[scary,dramatic music]
Wahoo! Mail for me?
[scary, dramatic music]
Genesis week has again found itself in the top ten of most discussed videos for the
week in science and technology on youtube. I got a barrage of emails from
skeptics wanting me to cover thermodynamics on Genesis Week, and
claiming that because I hadn't covered it, my silence must be acknowledgement
that I was wrong about what I said a few weeks back. Actually, if you recall, I said I
was going to make a video dedicated to the subject. I am still working on it - I am
producing this show weekly, which is a lot of work, I'm working on a book, and I'm
appearing on the Creation Today program, so I've been swamped. So just
....be patient! My - I've never had such a large group of people begging me to give
them a public caning!
Some viewers wrote in last week:
Thanks for writing in, but apparently you missed the point. You admit in your
comments that the evolutionism myth claims bird hips evolved from lizard hips.
To change a lizard hip into a bird hip takes major re-engineering of the
structure of the entire organism - muscles need to be moved, removed, attached
elsewhere along with the major bone changes. Yet, you somehow seem to think
this outlandish story is more believable if some of the dinosaurs kept their lizard
hips? Look, you are welcome to believe that lizard hips kept right on trucking in
different organisms, but that frankly is quite irrelevent to the discussion of
whether or not lizard hips could even evolve into bird hips.
Actually, ten times in the first chapter of Genesis alone, it says God created life to
reproduce after its kind. Of course what we actually see in the fossil record lines
up with Genesis - we see extinction, and stasis - organisms reproducing faithfully
after their kind. That is what is observable. Evolution is not observable,
testable, nor repeatable.
Vegavis also wrote in about Protoavis:
Thanks for writing in, however multiple paleontologists, including my good friend
Joe Taylor who actually saw the original protoavis fossil with his own two eyes,
see the fossil as a completely modern bird. Taylor actually lives just outside of
Post, Texas where the fossil was found, and I've actually excavated in those
triassic redbeds, with Taylor. When Taylor saw the fossil, he said to
Chatterjee "You know, the unbiased person would say that looks just like a
blackbird." To which Chaterjee agreed! The only reason protoavis is
"controversial" is because the rock layers in which it was found are "too old" for
birds. As for the Horton bluff fossil trackways,
you are grossly in error. The original claims described the track maker as a
crocodile-like creature, the Nova Scotia Museum website claims they were made
by an amphibian, and in a 2004 GSA paper, Lucas Spencer described the
interpretation of the tracks as "embarassingly bad blunder." He then
went on to make his own embarrassing remarks and claimed the tracks were
probably made by fish fins! I've personally studied and mapped out the trail. The
tracks were clearly made by a bipedal animal with two large toes, a big claw off
the tip of the larger toe, and no tail drag evidence anywhere. I compared those
footprints to actual ostrich tracks at an ostrich ranch in Alberta, and they are a
dead ringer, complete with a claw impression off the tip of the larger toe.
Interestingly, the famous Canadian geologist, William Logan, found fossil bird
tracks in that immediate area, in 1841. Sternberg mentioned these tracks in more
detail in a GSA bulletin in 1933, and said the tracks "superficially ... resemble the
tracks of some of the wading birds, but of course there is little probability of their
having been made by birds." Because as we all know, they can't be bird tracks,
because birds had not yet evolved in the carboniferous, right?
CircusOfPrecision got into a lengthy debate with several youtubers, making
numerous, significant points. I hope you don't mind my calling you "precision" for
short. It was clear that precision had a pretty wide range of knowledge, and I was
pretty impressed with their patience as they tried to explain their points to people
who did not want to understand. In response to claims that somehow letters
in the DNA were information, precision wrote:
You are right on the money Precision. Letters do not equal information, letters
convey information. You need more than letters - you need someone to assemble
the letters into information, a system for conveying the information, a system for
reading the information and a system for using the information, as precision
pointed out, based upon predetermined, arbitrary rules. A simile would be
someone speaking Arabic to someone who speaks and understands only english
- loads of information there, but they are operating on different rules to convey
information, and the information is lost, and unusable because of the system
breakdown. The incredible systems involved in life
that use the information in the DNA are staggering in their complexity, and
necessary to read the information in the DNA. But the information on how to build
those systems, necessary to read information in the DNA, comes from the
information conveyed by the DNA! It's a codependent system. As we can see in
the comments left against Precision by those who refused to understand, one
can truly say that there is none so blind as those who will not see. The comments
were just as shocking to follow as the story of Jesus healing the blind man from
birth, and the reaction of those who did not want to believe in Christ. You can see
why Jesus said "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not
might see; and that they which see might be made blind."
Precision, I don't know who you are, but for your valiant efforts in the intellectual
battle, I salute you.
Well that's it for this week's show, thanks for watching and ranting. Please click
"Share" down below to share this program with your friends on
twit-face-plus, and subscribe up top. Remember the words of Jesus who said "I
am the way, the TRUTH, and THE LIFE - no man comes to the Father but through
me." See you next Thursday.
[music]