BLOG

Archimedes (287-212 B.C.) was the Greek mathematician and inventor who articulated many of the principles you learned in high school, like how you can use pi to to calculate the area of a circle, and how the volume of a sphere is always two-thirds the volume of the cylinder it fits inside.  Archimedes showed how an object submerged in water loses weight equal to the water it displaces, and he also may have invented the compound pulley.

Scientists have discovered another of his writings.  Using X-ray technology, they've been able able coax into the light of day miniscule traces of ink (which luckily contains iron) from Archimedes' work, the palimpsest, which was copied down in the tenth century, but later erased and written over.  The X-rays of the pages reveal the original work underneath.

Courtesy ESA

The iceberg above that looks like an aircraft carrier is 70 miles long, and has been drifting along the coast of Antarctica since it broke off from the Ross Ice Shelf in 2000.  At that time it was larger and was affectionately named the B-15, but the remainder you see above is called B-15A.  It holds the lofty title of World's Largest Free-Floating Object.

However, this ice block is not as majestic as it makes out.  In the past B-15A plugged up McMurdo Sound, where innocent penguin colonies were, in the words of the ESA, "decimated" when ice formed over their feeding grounds (waters, I mean), blocked from normal ocean currents by the gigantic iceberg. More recently, B-15A glanced off of the Drygalski ice tongue (above, at bottom), which was "chipped" you might say.  Two pieces are floating on either side of B-15A.

But now, as the above image makes imminently clear, this colossal beast is posed to ram head-on into the tongue of Aviator Glacier, where, if it remains for any lengthy period of time, it will cut off ocean currents from the stretch of coast just beneath it--home to Weddell seals, Skuas, and colonies of Adelie Penguins.

But of course there is nothing we can do.  There is nothing penguin lovers can do.  There is nothing animal-rights groups can do.  Stopping a 70-mile-long iceberg, however slow or evil it may be, is not in the realm of reasonable possibility.

Curse these icebergs.

Don't put too much money in the report circulating from Sweden about the scientists--chiefly Dr. Ivanka Savic--who say they've discovered that gay men and straight men react differently to sexual smells.  Another plug for the ongoing "gay gene" search.  Scientists all over the world would have a fistfight to be the first to announce that homosexuality is a condition of our DNA. 

These researchers have found that certain male odors cause women's brains to respond sexually, while certain female odors cause men to respond sexually.  Keep in mind that "researchers used a far higher dose of the [chemical odor] than anyone would be exposed to in normal life."

But when Savic and his colleagues invited a group of homosexuals to participate in their study, they found that gay men's brains respond to the male odor the same way as straight females.  Lesbians also participated in the study, but their data is "somewhat complicated" and has not been released.

But no one can conclude anything substantial, because the study does not show whether the gay reaction is a cause of homosexual behavior or a result of it.  "The study does not give any answer to these crucial questions," said Dr. Savic.  In other words, gay men may respond because that's what they've become accustomed to--the result of a lifestyle that many have freely chosen.

Even if we were to find some gene or hormone that made people desire homosexuality, that wouldn't make it okay for them to practice it.  If I have the strong temptation to kill someone, whether the urge is hormonal or not, it doesn't mean I should.  God has made it clear in the Bible that homosexual acts--and all extramarital sex--are sin.

A revolutionary idea:  Motherhood makes Moms smarter.  If you are a woman who is pregnant or who is raising children, you don't have to take any more snide remarks from our culture about how your kids are going to lower your IQ or make you less competent.  Just read this article by Katherine Ellison, who authored "The Mommy Brain: How Motherhood Makes Us Smarter."

Many Americans hate children.  Our abortion rate is evidence enough for this, but on top of that we could consider the raging market for contraceptives, which fuels the idea that children are the undesirable byproducts of sex--an STD.  In our country it is nothing for a 13-year-old to sleep with her boyfriend, but if she gets pregnant . . . how tragic.  It's as if pregnancy is a sin.  As if the offspring were to blame for the mother and father's lust and fornication.

The real issue is selfishness.  We want to have our own lives, pursuing our own money, our own dreams, our own pleasure.  Kids mean we have to put ourselves aside to help someone else.

And we hate that.

A Belated Happy Mother's Day to all those who gave way to their natural affections, and raised to life a son or daughter.
Our pity on the less fortunate.

Zahi Hawass, head of Egypt's Supreme Council for Antiquities, has announced the discovery of a mummy decorated with "maybe the most beautiful scenes I have ever seen in my life on a mummy."  Blue, gold, red, and green form images of Egyptian deities, including Ma'at, a goddess representing truth and balance, and Anubis, a jackel-headed god associated with burial.  Other painted portions imitate the mummy's feet, necklace, and head, covered in a bright blue wig and commanded with black irises on snowy white eyes.

Hawass dates the mummy from the 30th dynasty, comprised of the reigns of Pharaohs Nectanebo I, Teos, and Nectanebo II during 381 to 343 (BC).  It was found 15 miles south of Cairo, in King Teti's reused necropolis.  The cartonnage--a layer of linen and papyrus covering the body--has not been opened, but Hawass believes he will find a male.  He plans to scan the mummy in the coming days in hopes of finding clues as to how the obviously-wealthy person died.

We've all seen the evolutionary line-up of profiles that show an ape on all fours, then an ape upright, then an ape more upright, and so on through a bunch of deformed-looking humans until you reach the climax at the far right, "Modern Man" (who, of course, is always a white European.)  The people who make these charts always claim to have fossil evidence to prove each of these intermediate "hominids," and most of us don't have the knowledge on hand to dispute them.  But if we did a little archaeological research, how well would the Evolution of Man chart hold together?

Remember that in biological evolution, man must evolve from apes.  If he doesn't, that means man was created.  And that would destroy cosmic evolution.  So not only do evolutionists want to believe in ape-to-man evolution--they have to.  Many have built their lives on the theory.

So let's have a little sympathy for the evolutionist archaeologist trawling around in the dirt, sweating with the anticipation that the tooth he has just discovered belongs to a prehistoric, upright-walking ape, okay?  They are only human too.

Ramapithecus was the name given to the species which was said to be an ancestor of man until the 1980's.  Nowadays, it is categorized in the sivapithicus branch, next to orangutans, and is considered a cousin, but not an ancestor of, humans. Good call because the whole species is based on two fragments of jawbone (including teeth) found in India and Africa.  You have no choice but to make some pretty large assumptions in order to conclude that Ramapithicus was a upright monkey, much less a prototype for humans. (See the jawbones here)

The genus Australopithecus ("southern ape") is said to contain the oldest hominids (2-3 million years old).  It is in this genus that the famed "Lucy" skeleton is placed.  Lucy was found in Ethiopia in 1974.  Hopefully one day soon I'll write a whole article about Lucy and her kind--for now just suffice it to say that the archaeologists who found her determined she walked upright largely because of a knee joint they found.  Problem is, the knee joint was found over a mile away from the rest of the skeleton.  Ah, but they must have been closely related. . .

Peking Man was unearthed in China.  He started out as three molar teeth, but in a few years grew to a dozen skull fragments and jawbones, 7 thigh fragments, a couple arms, a wrist, and about 150 teeth.  Of course, he had a few of his cousins with him.  But he also had some friends.  Elephants, deer, modern humans, and stone tools were found mixed with the Peking Man fossils.  Besides that, a huge ash heap was found nearby.  It appears that Peking Man and his cousins may have been no more than monkeys who became supper for a hunting group.

Piltdown Man is not really worth talking about, but it demonstrates how easily people can be deceived if they want to believe something.  In 1912 a skull cap and jaw were found--the skull human-like, the jaw ape-like.  Evolutionists were convinced they had finally found the missing link between man and ape, and for 40 years they trumpeted the find and saturated the public with "the truth".
But 1953 chemical testing demonstrated that the bones had been stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down to fit them in the jaw.  Evolutionists had been took.
A similar case happened with Nebraska Man, who was completely created out of single fossilized tooth found in Nebraska.  Later it was found to be the tooth of a pig.

Neanderthal Man also deserves a more lengthy exposition.  Except for those who are itching to find an ancient ancestor, Neanderthal Man is nothing more than a modern human who suffered from rickets and arthritis.  There is simply no reason to believe he roamed around naked and killed buffalo by chasing them and pounding their heads with rocks.  Or that he lived hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Yet despite the sketchy evidence and controversial theories, these and other "transitional forms" are continually drawn out as fact in school textbooks, science articles and television specials.  The reason is because evolutionists have to have them.  Unless they find them, theorize about them, publish them, or even create them, they have no explanation for the origin of man.  Which cannot have been God.

[I am indebted to Dennis R. Petersen and his work in "Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation" (Master Books), which made this blog entry possible]