Most Mammals Have 7 Cervical Vertebrae – Not Quite Enough to be Evidence for Evolution

Giraffes have seven cervical vertebrae (neck bones), the same number as humans. Given that the giraffe's neck is so much longer than ours, some people are surprised we have the same number of neck bones. The fact of the matter is that nearly every mammal has seven neck bones – mice, dogs, and even whales. I've heard it proposed that this is because all mammals are descended from a common ancestor which also had seven neck bones and so the nearly universal number of seven vertebrae is strong evidence for evolution.

A similar argument is often made concerning the bone structure of the forelimbs in tetrapods. Mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and birds all have representative species that have the homologous structure of humerus, radius, and ulna. The case is made that these limbs are similar because all these creatures have descended from a common ancestor which had the same structure.

I heard this argument – the one about giraffes having seven neck bones – online again the other day. The whole story sounds kind of contrived to me. I got to thinking about how I might be able to test that theory. Like any scientific theory, it should be able to make predictions. So, if different species which are descended from a common ancestor have the same number of cervical vertebrae, what else might I expect to be true?

The first prediction I might make is that if giraffes and humans have the same number of neck vertebrae due to common descent, then all mammals should have the same number of cervical vertebrae. Is this what we find? In short, no. Most mammals do indeed have seven neck bones but not all of them do. The two-toed sloth has 5-7 vertebrae, the three-toed sloth has 8-10, and manatee have only 6. So this prediction fails.

I might also predict that mammals should also have similar numbers of vertebrae in other parts of their spines. A quick look at Wiki shows this isn't the case. In the thoracic vertebrae, numbers vary between 12-15 in different species of mammals; in the lumbar region there are usually 6-7 but some species have 20; the number in the sacral region can vary between 3-10. Any similarity in the number of vertebrae exists only in the cervical area of the spine and even that isn't universal. Another failed prediction for the theory.

I would also think that if descent with modification were true, then there should be a discernible pattern in the number of ribs among mammals. There isn't any. Mammals have varying numbers of ribs between 6 and 15 pairs. Even in the famous horse evolution sequence, there are reversals in the numbers of ribs between oldest alleged ancestor and the “transitions” to the modern horse. Still another fail.

Now, since there is supposedly homology in the forelimbs of, say, mammals and birds, then could we also predict 7 cervical vertebrae among birds? We might, but birds have far more cervical vertebrae than mammals. So similar forelimbs in mammals and birds is supposedly the product of evolution and a different number of neck bones is also the product of evolution?  Fail.

Think about this too: all mammals (well, we've already seen it's not all mammals) have the same number of cervical vertebrae. Then could we expect something similar to occur among the members of other classes? Do all birds, for example, have the same number of cervical vertebrae? No. Do all reptiles? No. Do all amphibians? No. Why does common descent “explain” this common feature among mammals when we don't see a similar thing occur among the other classes of animals? Fail.

Finally, birds are alleged to have evolved from dinosaurs. If descent with modification is true, then wouldn't there be some correlation in the number of cervical vertebrae between birds and dinosaurs? Well, there isn't any. Long-necked sauropods had up to 19 cervical vertebrae. Most bipedal dinosaurs had less. Birds have up to 25. Fail.  Fail.  Fail.

Time after time, we see that things we might predict if evolution were true aren't found. Any claim that the common number of neck bones among mammals is evidence of descent from a common ancestor is nothing more than special pleading. If the same number of vertebrae is evidence for evolution, than differing numbers should be evidence against the theory. Of course, evolutionists don't see it that way. They're perfectly content with a theory that could explain the same number of neck bones in different species but doesn't require it. In other words, they have a scientific theory that doesn't really explain or predict anything.

Not a very good “theory,” is it?

Failed Predictions of Evolutionary Theories

The strength of any scientific theory is measured by its ability to make predictions. It works sort of like this: I might have a guess about what causes (or caused) some phenomenon. I would then say, “If my theory is true, I would expect to find this other thing.” If that other thing is found, it gives weight to the theory that it might be correct. If that other thing is not found, then it could be evidence that the theory is not correct.

I'll give you a hypothetical example of how this works. Before we ever went to the moon, pretend that I insisted that the moon is made of cheese. If my theory were true, I could predict that any rock brought back from the moon would actually be cheese. Technically, theories are never “proven” to be true. If the rocks brought back from the moon did turn out to be cheese, it still doesn't mean the entire moon is made of cheese – it could have been just those few rocks. Even so, it does make my theory seem more likely. However, if all the rocks brought back turned out to be ordinary rocks and none were cheese, it's very strong evidence against my theory.

Some people claim evolution is a strong theory that has made many successful predictions. What they always fail to discuss is how evolution is so plastic a theory that it's virtually impossible to falsify and even some of the things we might predict if the theory were true are epic fails. I thought I'd take a moment and discuss just a few of evolution's failed predictions.

Radiometric dating: Certain, naturally occurring substances are unstable and so will decay over time until it becomes a stable substance. Uranium, for example, decays over time and eventually becomes lead. The rate at which the decay occurs varies from substance to substance. Some decay at an extremely slow rate while others decay more rapidly (relatively speaking). By measuring the ratio of the parent/daughter elements (uranium/lead, for example), scientists can estimate how long the decay has been occurring. Many scientists consider radiometric dating to be the final word in determining the age of any sample and it is from radiometric dating that many people are convinced that the earth is very old. If radiometric dating actually dates things accurately, we could make a few predictions:

Prediction #1: Newly formed rocks should not have any of the daughter element present and should show an age of “zero.”

Results: Rocks formed at the Mt St Helen's eruption were dated using potassium/argon dating, the samples yielding ages up to 2.8 million years even though the known age of the rocks was 10 years old. FAIL.

Prediction #2: Carbon 14 is an unstable element found in all living things. As living things breath and eat, they accumulate C14. Once the thing dies, the C14 begins to decay and becomes C12. The key difference in this radiometric dating method and those discussed in the previous paragraph is that the decay rate of C14 is much quicker than many other types. It has a half-life of only 5,730 years. Due to its short half-life, we can predict that samples more than 100,000 years old should have no detectable C14 remaining in them.

Result: An 8 year long endeavor by creation scientists known as the RATE project, has found it is impossible to find any old samples without detectable levels of carbon. Even diamonds, the hardest natural substance and virtually impossible to contaminate, consistently yield trace C14 even though they are supposed to be a billion years old. FAIL.

Progression in the Fossil Record: According to secular dating, the rock layers represent the accumulation of sediment being laid down over time. The layers further down are older than the layers above them. Where fossils are found in the layers supposedly represents when those creatures lived. Creatures found in fossils in lower strata lived before the creatures found above them.

Prediction #3: If evolution were true, there should be a clear progression of simple to complex in the fossil record where the older creatures are more primitive than the younger creatures.

Result: Dinosaurs allegedly evolved into birds. However, I recently wrote about feathers identified as 78 myo yet are still described as being “nearly identical to those of modern birds.” I also wrote about the supposed human ancestor, Australopithecus afarensis. This very ape-like creature was found in the same age of rocks as the Laetoli Footprints which are described as “almost indistinguishable from modern human footprints,” matching our feet in both the toe pattern and stride. In both of these cases, and many others I could cite, we see evidence of modern creatures living simultaneously as their supposed ancestors. There is no clear progression in the fossils of simple to complex. FAIL.

Transitional Forms: Evolution is a history of descent with modification. A lobed fin becomes a leg which become wing. A fold in the skin becomes a scale which becomes a feather. The structures found on every creature of every species are simply adaptations of more primitive structures found on the creatures' ancestors.

Prediction #4: If evolution were true, we should expect to find volumes of fossil evidence showing creatures in transition from one species to another. In Darwin's own words, “innumerable transitional forms must have existed.... [J]ust in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, be truly enormous.” We should not be able to turn over a shovel of dirt without finding another transitional form.

Result: Darwin himself was surprised that we didn't find, “every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links.” After more than a century and a half of looking, and the trillions of fossils that exist, evolutionists have – at most – a few dozen examples of transitional forms and even most of these are suspect. The “innumerable” amount we would expect to find are simply not there. FAIL.

The Appendix: As we've already discussed, evolution is a history of descent with modification. Over time, some structures have supposedly lost their original function and have either become useless or have been adapted for some completely different function. Such structures are called, “vestigial.” The appendix is perhaps the most touted example of a vestigial structure.

Prediction #5: The appendix appears in many different species of mammals. If descent with modification has occurred, we should be able to trace the appendix along the so called, “tree of life” and find that all the creatures who have an appendix also share a common ancestor.

Result: The appendix appears in some species of primates, rodents, and even marsupials but is absent from the intermediate groups linking these species. It appears on the tree of life in no discernible pattern. FAIL.

Tiktaalik: I bring this up because it is often cited by evolutionists as an example of a successful prediction made by their theory. It was even used by Bill Nye in his debate against Ken Ham. The most commonly accepted understanding of history is that life began in the sea and evolved onto land. If this has occurred, scientists would expect to find fossil evidence of creatures with structures in transition from sea-to-land.

Prediction #6: Based on their understanding of when the supposed transition of sea-to-land occurred, researchers began exploring an area of exposed, Devonian deposits in the Canadian Arctic in hopes of finding fossil evidence of a creature in transition from sea-to-land. They found Tiktaalik. According to one website detailing the prediction, “Not only was it exciting to find a new species, but it was made all the better by the fact that scientists had predicted the existence of a creature like this all along.”

Result: A few years after the discovery of Tiktaalik, a track of fossilized footprints belonging to a tetrapod were uncovered in a quarry in Poland. They were dated according to evolutionary dating methods to be 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. This would mean that fully evolved, ambulatory tetrapods were walking around millions of years before their supposed ancestor, Tiktaalik, ever lived (see failed prediction #3). FAIL.

In summary, I'll just say that I'm not sure of any successful predictions the theory of evolution has made. Many of those that endure are what I call, “predictions after the fact,” like “if evolution were true, I would predict that creatures could reproduce.” These types of “predictions” are worthless. I only know that there are many, many failed predictions. It's generous that we still even call it a “theory.”

A Lot of Fluff About Dinosaur Feathers

A few years back, there was a little buzz about feathers found preserved in amber. The amber was dated according to evolutionary dating methods to be about 78 million years old putting it squarely in the “age of the dinosaurs.” The supposed age of the feathers earned them the moniker of “dinosaur feathers.”

Dinosaur-to-bird evolution is a much loved fantasy in the theory's narrative. You may have noticed over the last few years how dinosaurs are now being drawn to look more bird-like. Scales have been replaced with a bright plumage and the stubby arms of bipedal dinosaurs are being revamped to look like wings. A find like this seems to reaffirm evolutionists' suspicions about dinos becoming birds.

In a report about the find, The Atlantic made the following comments:

Researchers led by University of Alberta paleontologist Ryan McKellar say these specimens represent distinct stages of feather evolution, from early-stage, single filament protofeathers to much more complex structures associated with modern diving birds.... This discovery is a pretty significant find. It supports a model for the evolution of feathers that has previously relied on compression fossils that are difficult to interpret and have been hotly debated.

As usual, I have some of my own opinions about the find.

First, it's more than a little presumptuous to say, “these specimens represent distinct stages of feather evolution.” Isn't that a conclusion? If all these feathers existed contemporaneously, then can't it just as truthfully be said they simply represent various levels of complexity among feathers? They don't support evolution unless I interpret them according to evolution. I could do something similar with dogs. For example, I could arrange dog skulls in order from smallest to largest and say, “These skulls represent the stages of dog evolution from the chihuahua to the great dane.” If evolution were true, I would expect the least complex feathers to be much older than the most complex feathers. I certainly wouldn't expect all the “stages” of feather evolution to exist at the same time. It could happen, I suppose, but it's not predicted by the theory.

Next, what evidence do they have that these feathers even belonged to dinosaurs? The Atlantic headline clearly says, “Dinosaur Feathers Found in Amber Reinforce Evolutionary Theories” but in the text of the article they admit, “[The researchers] can't determine which feathers belonged to birds or dinosaurs yet.” Here's a thought – maybe none of them belonged to dinosaurs! Maybe they're all bird feathers. Some of these feathers are described as “nearly identical to those of modern birds.” So instead of being evidence that reinforces evolutionary theories, I could say it's evidence that modern birds existed simultaneously with their supposed ancestors. In other words, it's evidence against evolutionary theories.

Finally, there is nothing about creationism that predicts dinosaurs cannot have feathers. God created a variety of creatures. Many of them have certain features in common. When you talk about something like flight, birds have wings more similar to bat wings than insect wings. Even though God created birds with more features in common with bats than insects, it doesn't mean they're “more closely related” to bats. Likewise, there's no reason God could not have given dinosaurs a covering of some sort the same way He put feathers on birds and hair on mammals. Maybe they had a type of crude feather. Maybe they had complex feathers. Maybe they had some other fibrous structure that scientists are mistakenly calling, “proto-feathers.” Maybe they had none of these features and all the speculation of feathers on dinos is dead wrong. Whatever the case, it's not evidence against creation nor evidence for evolution.

I'll tell you exactly what scientists found – feathers in amber. That's the only “fact” in the story and, in some of the specimens, even that is suspect. The sensational headlines, the “evidence” for evolution, and the chest thumping by the researchers are all fluff.

What Does Noah Have in Common with Barney?

My daughter loved watching Barney the Dinosaur while she was growing up. I mean, she really loved it. She would dance, sing the songs, and be memorized the entire ½ hour the show was on. My wife and I didn't mind so much because barney was a decent show. It taught lessons like sharing, playing nice together, picking up after yourself, and other things kids need to learn. I guess a lot of parents felt the same way because Barney, at least at that time, was enormously popular.

So what does any of this have to do with Noah? I'll tell you. Have you ever been in a kids' Sunday school class where they told Bible stories about Noah, or Daniel, or David? They sometimes color pages with little cartoons of Bible characters. They sing songs and play Bible themed games. They hear life lessons about being nice to other people, obeying your parents, and worshiping God. These are all things that Christians parents should want their kids to learn. It's a lot like watching Barney.

My daughter is 21 now and doesn't watch Barney anymore.

I think Churches sometimes do a disservice to kids by teaching them from the Bible like it's a fairy tale. They might not say it's a fairy tale, but they teach it with the same trappings and trimmings as kids see on Barney. It has the music, the games, and it always seems to end with “a moral to the story.” In their little minds, I'm not really sure how kids can be expected to distinguish between Bible stories taught in this manner and other fairy tales like Barney, Mother Goose, or Aesop's Fables.

When these same kids start school, what might happen? Ask yourself this question: If I wanted to learn about science or dinosaurs or the universe, where might I look? Really. Think about it for a second. Name some places where you might learn about science. Next ask, If I wanted to learn about morality or religion where might I look? The answers seem obvious. Like it or not, if people want to learn about science or “facts,” the first places they think to look are schools or text books and if people want to learn about religion, only then would they look to the Bible or the Church. People tend to only think of the Bible as a book about religion. If they want to learn about the “real world,” then you have to go to school or turn to science.

We are telling kids that schools are important and will teach them things they need to know about the world. We believe it ourselves. So when these kids go to school and hear that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, there really was no Flood, and men used to be apes, I think they're apt to believe it. Worse yet, these things directly contradict the “stories” they heard in Sunday school. On Sunday, they sing songs like, “♪Oh God said to Noah, 'There's gonna be a floody floody....'♪” Then they go to school on Monday and hear that there really was no Flood. Which do you think they'll believe? The nursery rhyme or the “facts” they learned in school?

Simply telling children that we don't believe in evolution isn't enough. Imagine a group of kids going to a museum and seeing the fossils of dinosaurs, seeing stone tools used by “ape-men,” and reading that these things lived hundreds of thousands or even millions of years ago. To them, these are “facts.” This is “evidence.” They might ask their Sunday school teacher about evolution or if dinosaurs really lived millions of years ago. The Sunday school teach might answer, “Oh, we don't believe that.” A curious child might ask, “No? Then what do we believe?” The teacher answers, “We believe that, '♪God said to Noah there's gonna be a floody floody....'♪” You can see how that's not convincing.

Christ called us first to preach the gospel. He then commanded us to make disciples. Preaching the word is only have the job; we also must be teachers. When we teach the Bible to children, I think we should approach the task in much the same way that kids learn in school. We don't just talk about a man named Noah. Instead, we explain that he was a person who lived in history. When they find a fossil (probably of a shell), it's evidence that this place was once under water – just like the account of Noah tells us. Instead of showing cartoons of Noah's Ark with Noah standing on the deck of the Ark in a raincoat surrounded by a menagerie poking out of every window, we need to show them to scale drawings of what the Ark might have looked like. When they ask us about fossils of dinosaurs or Neanderthals, we need to show them how these things are explained by the Bible.

Making lessons interesting and understandable to kids is fine. But above all else, we need to be sure that they understand that the “stories” from the Bible are real events that happened in history. David, Daniel, and Noah were real people just like their moms and dads are real. We need to explain that Barney is just a character like Sponge Bob.

Kids grow up and they stop believing in Barney.  We don't want them to grow up and stop believing the Bible.  Noah is really nothing like Barney.

The 6th Lie that Evolutionists Tell: Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order.

"Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours." Richard Dawkins, The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution.

This quote just annoys me (I mean, besides the peculiar, European way that Dawkins spelled, “colors”). I think I'm going to add it as a 6^th lie to the “Five lies evolutionists tell.” Dawkins may have made this particular quote but I've heard a similar sentiment expressed many times in different ways. You may have heard someone say something like, “Evolution would be disproved if we found a rabbit in the Cambrian.” It's all a lie! It's a lie on so many different levels that I'm not sure if I can cover them all sufficiently in a single post – but, of course, I'll try.

First, there is a very subtle lie that most people completely overlook. Dawkins used the phrase “date order.” By doing this, he immediately projects the idea of time onto the fossil record; thus, fossils found lower in the fossil record are “older” than the ones above them. The reality is that the order in which fossils are buried simply demonstrates the order in which they were buried. It is the long age assumptions of their theory that says lower fossils are older.

According to YEC theory, most of the fossil bearing, geological column was formed during the Flood event. The lower fossils may have buried first but they're not necessarily “older.” If I filled a glass with ice, the cubes on the bottom were laid down first but they're not “older” than the cubes above them. By referring to where fossils appear as the “date order,” Dawkins is creating the false impression that their sequence represents, de facto, when the creatures lived. It's a lie.

From there, we next must understand that evolutionists have constructed their history of life on earth according to where they have found the fossils. We have found shark fossils, for example, very low in the fossil record so most scientists believe sharks lived very long ago. We find dinosaur fossils above shark fossils so scientists assume dinosaurs evolved after sharks. Of course, sharks are still alive today and dinosaurs are extinct; one might ask where are the shark fossils above the dino fossils that represent the “millions of years” sharks have continued living since the dinos went extinct? I ask rhetorically because that's not my point right now. I'm merely demonstrating how evolutionists piece together the history of evolution using the fossil order. Species found at the bottom lived first; species found higher evolved later.

If evolutionists construct their theory according to the order in which fossils appear, then how could any fossil possibly upset the theory? If the fossil of some particular species is found “out of order” from where it was previously expected, the theory is just tweaked to accommodate the new find. I wrote about this common phenomenon in a post titled, “A lot of things seem to have evolved 'earlier than thought'” where I cited a few headlines like, “Complex vision evolved earlier than thought” and “Ants evolved much earlier than thought.” “Out of order” fossils are rather ordinary. When a fossil appears out of sequence (which we often find), we simply see a new headline that says, “New find pushes evolution of this species back to earlier than thought.”  It's a lie to say that such a find would “easily disprove” the theory.

Now, even though evolution is so plastic that it can be stretched to accommodate nearly any discovery, we have occasionally found fossils that present rather thorny difficulties for evolutionists. A few years ago, I wrote about a controversial find in Mexico where dozens of modern looking, human footprints were found in volcanic ash that was dated via radiometric dating to be 1.3 million years old. That means either modern humans were walking around in Mexico 1.3 million years ago or the ash layer isn't really 1.3 million years old. Neither comports well with evolution. In order to rescue their theory, scientists decided the footprints really belonged to cows. No, I'm not kidding.

You can see then how scientists brazenly twist the evidence in order to force it to fit their theory. If a rabbit were ever found in the Cambrian, I predict we would read a headline something like, “Ancient species of lizard looked exactly like a modern rabbit!”

Dawkins quote is fluff. He speaks it with confidence in order to bolster evolution and make it seem unassailable but it's all smoke and mirrors. Evolutionists are constantly redrawing all the lines of evolutionary history every day as new evidence overturns their previous theories about the evidence.  For them to boldly say the theory stands up to every new find is laughable. Could that be what Dawkins meant when he said evolution is “The Greatest Show on Earth”?

What we need to find is a cassette tape in the Cambrian. Wouldn't that be funny? I know it can't happen since we know the Cambrian was already formed before cassette tapes were invented. Even so, I wonder how the evolutionists would explain that away?

Marco Polo Describes a Dinosaur

The standard evolutionary argument is that dinosaurs are spearated from modern humans by a span of about 60 million years. If that were true, we could predict that no modern human has ever seen a dinosaur. Opponents of Christianity have even used this as a criticism of the Bible; you may have heard critics say something like, “If people and dinosaurs lived together, why doesn't the Bible mention dinosaurs?” The fact of the matter is the Bible does describe animals that resemble dinosaurs – though it doesn't use the word “dinosaur,” which is a term coined relatively recently. The Bible, for example, frequently uses the term, “dragons,” which some have proposed is a reference to dinosaurs.

Besides the Bible, other books of antiquity have made references to dragons. Pliny the Elder was a naturalist who wrote about many animals, most of which are rather mundane. However, in several places, he refers to “dragons” and describes them as enormous creatures who can actually fight (and usually kill) elephants! From Pliny's description of dragons though, I suspect he is actually describing very large snakes – perhaps as long as 120' in length (which is still very impressive).

There are many other historical references which I've read over the years. However, I came across still another account that was very interesting. It is from The Travels of Marco Polo the Venetian:

Leaving the city of Yacho, and travelling ten days in a westerly direction, you reach the province of Karazan, which is also the name of its chief city.... Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length, and ten spans in the girt of its body. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of a tiger, with eyes larger than a fourpenny loaf (pane da quattro denari) and very glaring. The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable, that neither man, nor any kind of animal, can approach them without terror.

I was struck by the great care with which the author describes this creature: It is “10 paces in length” (30 feet) and “10 spans in the girt of the body” (about 7 feet thick, assuming a “span” is 8 inches). Though it doesn't say specifically that the creature has four legs, it does describe the forelimbs as being “short” and having “three claws.” When you throw in jaws “wide enough to swallow a man,” it sure sounds to me like a good description of a large, bipedal dinosaur.

Of course, others will reject my opinion. I would direct your attention to the editor's footnotes where he says, “This distorted account of an alligator or crocodile is less creditable to our author's fidelity than any other of his natural history descriptions.” In other words, “Polo is usually pretty good at describing animals but he really blew it when describing this alligator.” Maybe the account isn't distorted at all. Maybe it's a good description of a dinosaur. Given the fact that the animal is further described as lurking in caverns during the day, hunting terrestrial animals, and then having to go to the river to drink, it's certainly not a crocodile. It's also rather silly to suppose that Marco Polo, an ocean voyager and naturalist extraordinaire, wasn't familiar enough with crocodiles to describe them accurately.

Another interesting item gleaned from this account is how Polo describes the way these terrifying beasts were hunted.

By their motion in this way along the shore, and their vast weight, they make a deep depression, as if a heavy beam had been drawn along the sands. Those whose employment is to hunt them observe the track by which they are most frequently accustomed to go, and fix into the ground several pieces of wood armed with sharp iron spikes, which they cover with the sand in such a manner as not to be perceptible. When therefore the animals make their way towards the places they usually haunt, they are wounded by these instruments, and speedily killed.

Another criticism often used against creation is that if men and dinos lived together, then dinosaurs would eat the people. That's a laugh. Humans are the top predators on the planet and I have said before that, when humans and dinos interact, it's the dinos who get killed. Here we seen another example of human cunning. A 30 foot long animal with sharp teeth and jaws big enough to swallow a man is still no match for human intelligence.

Now, in all fairness, if modern humans saw a dinosaur, it's not “proof” against evolution. Even if a living dinosaur were found today, it wouldn't necessarily disprove evolution. But it doesn't help it either. The world is what it is and theories are attempts to describe it. The Bible says land animals (which would include dinosaurs) and man are contemporaries. The theory of evolution says dinosaurs became extinct millions of years before humans appeared. When we have accounts that seem to describe dinosaurs and people living together, it comports much better with the Bible.

The Dinosaur Death Pose: Just Add Water

Answers in Genesis posted a great find in their weekly News to Note. They've highlighted a gem from New Scientist titled, “Watery secret of the dinosaur death pose.” Here's the gist of the article: when scientists are lucky enough to find the complete skeleton of a dinosaur, there's a good chance it will have its head thrown backward and its tail arched upward. The position is so common, it has earned its own name, the “opisthotonic death pose.”

What causes the pose has been much speculated. An enduring opinion has been that the pose is the result of the dying creature's death throes. A team from Brigham Young University recently attempted to recreate the condition. Leaving the carcasses of plucked chickens on a bed of sand for three months did not produce the muscle contortions. However, when the scientists placed seven chickens in cool, fresh water, their head was thrown back in seconds.

The article ends saying, “Cutler has confidence in her freshwater study: "Although the roads to the opisthotonic death pose are many, immersion in water is the simplest explanation.”

Needless to say, the finding is significant to the creation theory. Creationists have long held that the majority of fossils were created during the global deluge described in Genesis. These results seem to support that idea. It could be that the dinosaurs were immersed in water (the Flood), their muscles contorted as did the chickens, then they were buried rapidly in sediment – forever preserving their grim posture. And since the pose is so usual and is found everywhere in the world, it suggests the cause was global.

I like NewScientist's opening line, “Recreating the spectacular pose many dinosaurs adopted in death might involve following the simplest of instructions: just add water.” That should be on the mind of every scientist as they examine the world around us. As they consider why the world is as it is, they need to add water to the equation. They need to add the Flood!

How Are Myths Born?

After my last post about unicorns, I began to wonder how the legend of the western unicorn arose. As I discussed already, there have been true one horned animals throughout history but how did the idea of a horned horse become popular? I did a cursory search on Google and found there are many opinions. Interestingly, all of the various theories had one thing in common – they all involved elaboration on real animals. Even if we never know which animal it might have been, the mere fact that everyone thinks it was based on a real animal intrigued me. Is that how myths are born?

What other legendary animals might have been born out of encounters with real animals. Many creation apologists have long speculated that dragon legends were depictions of man's encounters with dinosaurs. I've thought about writing on that in the past but there's been so much said on the subject that I decided not to unless I come up with some original angle. However, there are many other creatures of legend. Could they too be elaborated upon depictions of real animals? Let's look at a few.

In the movie, Jurassic Park, velociraptors were very dinosaur-looking. Since then, a few new fossil finds and much artistic license have made more recent renderings much more bird-like. I've always said that dino-to-bird evolution has been occurring in the minds of scientists. Anyway, if a Renaissance-era person were to describe a modern depiction of a velociraptor, he might say it looks like a cross between a bird and a reptile. Are there any bird-reptile creatures of myth? Certainly there is. According to Wikipedia, "the cockatrice is a legendary creature, essentially a two-legged dragon with a rooster's head." If the modern renderings of velociraptors are accurate, I would say it very much looks like a cockatrice. So perhaps the velociraptor gave birth to the cockatrice legend.

The lindworm is described by Wikipedia as “a wingless, bipedal dragon.” That's interesting. If there is any truth to the claim that “dragons” is a reference to “dinosaurs”, then the lindworm is basically a wingless, bipedal dinosaur. The lindworm shown here was used in British heraldry. Tell me the truth, doesn't it resemble a bipedal dinosaur?

The wyvern is basically a winged reptile with two legs (sometimes depicted with no legs) and a barbed tail. Here, I have placed a drawing of a wyvern next to a depiction of a rhamphorhynchus. Again, isn't there an uncanny resemblance?

If modern scholars look to real animals as the inspiration for mythical animals (as they have done with the unicorn), then we would have to admit that these “prehistoric” creatures could serve as candidates for these various creatures of myth – assuming they were contemporaries of men. Now, I can't claim with absolute certainty that these are the very animals that gave rise to legends. However, I do know with certainty that men lived together with dinosaurs. It wouldn't surprise me, then, to find depictions and descriptions of various types of dinosaurs. If some dinosaurs were feathered, what better animal would serve as a candidate for the legend of the cockatrice? If a lindworm is a bipedal “dragon,” wouldn't a bipedal dinosaur be the most likely source of that legend?

In this post you've seen the legendary creatures side by side with real creatures. No one can credibly deny there are similarities. The only reason they would not be considered by some as the inspiration of legends is because evolutionists believe dinosaurs to be separated from man by millions of years. If that is the case, then they aren't going where the evidence leads but they are using their theory to shape the evidence. I say the fantastic depictions of dinosaur-looking animals are evidence of man's eye witness to these animals.

Further reading

How to Answer “The Bible says that Bats are Birds” and Similar Criticisms

Does The Bible Say There Are Unicorns?

Does The Bible Say There Are Unicorns?

He hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. (Numbers 23:22 KJV)

The King James Bible mentions unicorns in six verses. It doesn't give much detail about the creature except to say that it noted for having great strength. To the western mind, unicorns are mythical creatures that now only exist in fantasy novels and Dungeons & Dragons but the Bible talks about them as though they are real creatures. Many people pounce on this fact as an opportunity to label the Bible as a work of fiction. Even liberal Christians use the mention of unicorns as an excuse to say the Bible shouldn't be taken literally.

In response to such criticisms, we must first acknowledge them for what they are – straw man criticisms that don't accurately represent what the Bible says. Many critics aren't intentionally making a straw man. Instead, they are committing the exegetical fallacy of reverse etymology. That is, they are forcing the modern meaning of a word onto its original meaning. When the Bible was written in Hebrew, the Medieval concepts of unicorns did not even exist. The writers of the Bible certainly did not have the western image of unicorns in mind when the original text was penned.

My understanding of Hebrew is next to nothing but, according to Brown-Driver-Brigg's Hebrew Definitions the word translated as “unicorn” in Numbers 23:22 above is the Hebrew word “rêm” (ראם). BDB defines it as “wild bulls which are now extinct.” There's nothing about that definition that suggests the Hebrew writers specifically understood this beast to have a single horn. It could be a description of an animal using terminology similar to our name for the modern breed of cattle, the “long horn.”

Since I'm more comfortable reading Greek, I looked up the verse in the Septuagint where I found it is rendered as monokerōtos (μονοκέρωτος) which literally means “only horn” or “one horn.” So, even long before the KJV translation, it seems the idea of a one-horned animal was already understood. What we have then, is the Bible mentions a one-horned animal renowned for having great strength. Do such animals exist? Of course they do!

Even today there exists a species of rhinoceros with one horn. Interestingly, the Latin name for the animal is Rhinoceros unicornis. Did you see that, “unicornis”? It's the word unicorn! So even according to modern taxonomy, there are true unicorns alive today. Rhinos also possess great strength so a one-horned rhino would definitely fit the bill of the biblical unicorn.

Now, there are many other horned animals that have lived throughout history. For example, there is a group of horned animals called, ceratopsians. The most famous critter belonging to this group is the triceratops. The triceratops, of course, has three horns but another member of this club is monoclonius. Would you care to guess how many horns the monoclonius had? I don't know exactly how strong the monoclonius was but given the fact it about the size of a car, I would suspect it was likely impressive.

I'm sure there are still other candidates that would fit the description of the biblical unicorns. It's not my objective to prove exactly what species of creature it was. My objective is demonstrate what it was not – it was not the horned horse of European folklore.

Further reading

How to Answer “The Bible says that Bats are Birds” and Similar Criticisms

How Are Myths Born?

A Stegosaurus in Angkor? It's not a Magic Bullet

Sometimes, we want to believe something so much that we fail to look at it objectively. Other times, we are overly trusting of the source and also fail to consider things objectively. If we believe things too easily, we set ourselves up for disappointment. At the very least, we risk looking foolish. No matter how exciting something sounds and no matter how much we trust the source, we need to be skeptical about anything we see or hear. Remember, only God is perfect. Everything else is suspect.

Such is the case for a carving found among some temple ruins in jungles of Angkor, Cambodia. Here is a photo taken of one of the carvings. What do you think it looks like? I admit, it looks a lot like a stegosaurus. I showed the photo to my 8 year old son who also immediately identified it as a dinosaur. If it is a dinosaur, the implications are significant. How could there be such an accurate depiction of a dinosaur unless the carvers had actually seen one? If they had seen a living stegosaurus, it would mean that humans would have been contemporaries of dinosaurs just as is predicted by young-earth creationists.

Such a find is extremely exciting. It's almost like a silver bullet that immediately dispels the notion that dinos lived millions of years before humans even existed. After seeing this glyph, many sincere creationists have accepted the most obvious interpretation (that it's a stegosaurus) without question. They haven't stopped to consider any other explanations. They aren't skeptical.

Now, like I said, I admit it looks like a stegosaurus. I'm not sure what else it could be. It doesn't look like any other creature that I recognize. Even so, I'm not entirely sure it's a stegosaurus. It could be a rather mundane creature, like a hornless rhino as some have suggested. Note the short neck and large head; these are not typical of a stegosaurus. The plates that seem to be on the back of the creature could actually be simple decoration or even a tree behind the beast.

Several inches below the suspect carving, there is another carving which I've also included here. What exactly is this other creature? I think it resembles a satyr (as in the Greek god, Pan). Does that mean these people once saw a satyr? Of course it doesn't. Some people believe it's a monkey but, if so, it's a very loose resemblance. More likely, it's either a mythical creature or a much elaborated upon depiction of a real creature.

Furthermore, look at the decoration around the head of the creature. I think it resembles the “plates” on the back of the suspect carving. It could be something like a mask or head-dress. It could also be just a fancy decoration these ancient monks liked to add to their carvings.

Obviously, then, not every carving on the temples walls was meant to be of a real creature. The "stegosaurus" could likewise be "dressed up" ordinary animal or even a mythical creature that just happens to look like a stegosaurus. Of course, don't get me wrong; I think it could be a stegosaurus. I'm just not sure. I know that dinosaurs were contemporaries of humans and I don't need this carving to prove that. The Bible says that God made all the land animals on the sixth day of creation – the same day He created man (Genesis 1:24-31). They did not live millions of years ago because the Scriptures tell us that the earth is only a few thousand years old. The Bible is really all the evidence that we need. If this carving is indeed a stegosaurus, it's nice that it reaffirms what I already know to be true. However, the Bible is true with or without this carving.

So I say again that we must be skeptical. Don't trust anything at first hearing no matter how exciting it might seem. Science is a useful tool but our understanding is limited and flawed. Things we think are true today are soon shown to be wrong. Only the Bible is without error. If we base our faith on the latest scientific discoveries, we are certain to be disappointed. If we put our trust in the Bible, it will never be wrong. If you wed your faith to science today, you will find yourself a widow tomorrow.

Maybe Birds Aren’t Dinos After All!

This is big. I mean, this is huge! As far as I’m concerned this is the story of the year – maybe even of the decade. Physorg.com reports, “Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird links.” From the article: “Researchers at Oregon State University have made a fundamental new discovery about how birds breathe and have a lung capacity that allows for flight - and the finding means it's unlikely that birds descended from any known theropod dinosaurs.”

The transition of dino-to-bird has been a basic tenet of evolutionary dogma for decades. As an example of an evolutionary series, I’d say the dino-to-bird series is way ahead of the horse or whale series and is second only to ape-to-man evolution. In most evolutionists’ minds, bird from dinosaur evolution is settled. National Geographic once reported that we can say that birds are dinosaurs with as much confidence as we say humans are mammals. Of course, they later had to retract that statement with much red-facedness but we won’t go there now.

The confidence of evolutionists in the dino-to-bird theory can be seen in the way they present their theories to the public. Does anyone remember the velociraptors from the movie, Jurassic Park? In that movie, velociraptors were very dino-like. Lately, however, artistic renderings of velociraptors make them appear much more bird-like. It seems like dino-to-bird evolution truly has occurred in the minds of artists. This is what they believe and they’ve been selling it to the public as a done deal.

This new research could change all that. Again from the article, “The conclusions add to other evolving evidence that may finally force many paleontologists to reconsider their long-held belief that modern birds are the direct descendants of ancient, meat-eating dinosaurs, OSU researchers say.”

What insightful new facts did the OSU researchers uncover that led them to this about face? Here’s a quote from the article:

"For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.

Duh!! You think? I’m not a scientist or anything but even I could have told that you can’t have descendants older than their ancestors. And evolutionists are just now figuring it out? That should have been their first clue! But as they say, “love is blind” and if you have a theory you love, you can’t let facts get in the way!

Even though the reverse daughter/parent relationship should have sunk the whole dino-to-bird idea, what really did it for the OSU researchers involved the avian respiratory system and the characteristics of the femur (thigh) bone. According to the article, warm-blooded birds use about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles (I guess they’re assuming dinos are cold-blooded reptiles). By the way, this has been brought up many times before by creationists: how likely it is that animals having perhaps the lowest metabolic rate (reptiles) would directly evolve into animals having perhaps the highest metabolic rate (birds)? Because of their complex respiratory system, birds have a fixed femur that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing as it breathes. Dinosaurs, as well as every other walking land animal, lack this critical feature and, instead, have a moving femur. A moving femur in dinos means they could not have had a respiratory system like birds.

What really made me laugh as I read the article are these two candid quotes:

"It's really kind of amazing that after centuries of studying birds and flight we still didn't understand a basic aspect of bird biology," said John Ruben, an OSU professor of zoology….

"This is fundamental to bird physiology," said Devon Quick, an OSU instructor of zoology who completed this work as part of her doctoral studies. "It's really strange that no one realized this before.

No, it’s not really strange or amazing. When you’re committed to a theory, you project your theory onto the evidence. The theory becomes a paradigm through which all new data is viewed. If you go looking for evolution, you will see evolution where there is none. It’s like the saying, “when you’re a hammer, everything else looks like a nail.”

Now don’t get me wrong. The scientists at OSU aren’t becoming creationists. They’re not rejecting evolution over this flap – not even close. I’m sure they’re still 100% committed to evolution. I consider this to be another example of the Constanza Tactic which I’ve blogged about in the past. Evolutionists will push some highly touted evidence as “proof” of their theory, they will convince the public evolution is true, later they will quietly discard the evidence when they discover they were all wrong about it, and the public will continue believing in evolution.

Sometimes I wonder how many sub theories of evolution must be proven wrong before people begin to suspect the overall theory might not be true. Indeed, it doesn’t matter at all to many people that their “cherished theories” were wrong because they just come up with a new theory to explain the new evidence. If the new theory is later shown to be wrong as well, then it will be on to the next theory. But THE theory - the theory of evolution - can never be wrong.

Dinosaur Dance Floor

“In this undated photo released by the University of Utah, geologist Winston Seiler poses next a trackway, or set of prints made by the same dinosaur, as it walked through a wet, sandy oasis some 190 million years ago.”

Wow, 190 million year old footprints! That sounds impressive. When scientists first found these tracks in the Coyote Buttes North area straddling the Utah-Arizona border, they called the area a “dinosaur dance floor.” They believed they had found as many as 1,000 tracks of previously unidentified dinosaurs in this small, 1-acre site. They even found “tail-drag” marks in the rock. This was a truly incredible find.

.

But it was not to be. Other paleontologists were eager to see the site but when they got there, they couldn’t find a single track! So how do we go from 1,000 tracks to not a single track? From Time:

“"We went up there optimistic, really hoping we were going to find footprints," Milner said Friday. They quickly determined there were none. Instead, it was a dense collection of potholes caused by erosion in the sandstone, they said. And the supposed tail-drag marks in the rock? Probably another result of erosion, the paleontologists said.”

I can see why they were disappointed. The “footprints” and “tail-drag marks” were just potholes from water and erosion. Isn't it interesting how much of the earth’s topography is shaped by water and erosion? Hmmm.

.

The first moral of this story is to not believe everything you read. The pop-science media is quick to tout the latest “proof” of evolution only to have it retracted later. I understand they want headlines. They’re engaging in what I call the “Constanza Tactic.”

.

OK, on the one hand, I have to hand it to these guys for correcting the flawed “science” of the first group to explore the site. Science is supposed to be about being objective and going wherever the facts lead you. But on the other hand, come on! I mean, to mistake 1,000 potholes for dino-footprints is a little much! And the picture they painted was so real, a “dinosaur as it walked through a wet, sandy oasis some 190 million years ago.” Give me a break. So, they were wrong about the footprints. Could they be wrong about the 190 million years too? Nah! They’re already settled on that point.

And let me refresh your memories about a post I’d made while back (here). In a Mexico rock quarry, some modern human foot prints were discovered in the rock. When the rock was dated via a radioactive dating method called argon-argon, it was thought to have been around 1.3 million years old. It was a controversy to evolutionists because their theory states that modern man did not exist in Mexico 1.3 million years ago. Either the date is wrong or their theory is wrong. Well, they wouldn’t admit either was wrong. Instead, they looked at the footprints again and decided they were made by cows. (I still laugh every time I think about it!)

Now we see the opposite thing occurring. In the Arizona site, scientists mistook potholes for dinosaur footprints. The difference here is that they wanted to see dinosaur footprints. In the Mexico find, they didn’t want to see human footprints.

I’ve included both photos again here so they can be compared side by side. What do you think? In Arizona, scientists looked at potholes and saw dinosaur footprints. In Mexico, they looked at human footprints and saw cow footprints. It’s funny in a sad sort of way but these scientists are so blinded by their theory that they can’t see the evidence right in front of their eyes!

Look, I know that dino-footprints exist, but I also know that scientists have biases and they sometimes project their biases into their examination of the evidence. This first group wanted to see dino-footprints and so they saw dino-footprints. They see now they were wrong. The second group is convinced that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. They’re wrong too; they just haven’t seen it yet.

Further reading:

More Discordant Dates for Evolution

Human “Ancestors” had Modern Footprints